THE CATHOLIC'S READY ANSWER 



THE CATHOLIC'S READY 
ANSWER 



A Popular Vindication of Christian Beliefs and 

Practices Against the Attacks of 

Modern Criticism 



BY 

Rev. M. p. HILL, S.J. 




New York, Cincinnati, Chicago 

BENZIGER BROTHERS 

PRINTERS TO THE I PUBLISHERS OF 

HOLY APOSTOLIC SEE | BENZIGER'S MAGAZINE 

1915 



<9D 



f mprimf poteet. 



ANTONIUS J. MAAS, S.J., 

Prasp. Prov. Maryl. — Neo Ehor. 



Imptfmf potest. 



Peekskill, June 8, 1914. 



REMIGIUS LAFORT,S.T.D., 

Librorum Cemor. 



4i.ti. 



Copyright, 1915, bt Benziger Bbothers, New Yohk 



MAY 24 1915 
©aA3989e9 



PREFACE 

It is not many years since Father F. X. Brors, of the 
German Province of the Society of Jesus, sent forth to the 
world a small volume entitled ^'Modernes ABC" (Modern 
A B C), of which the scope and to a great extent the con- 
tents were identical with those of the work which we now 
present to the English-speaking public. Written in Ger- 
man and intended to meet the controversial needs of the 
Author's own countrymen, the little book soon justified its 
appearance in the field of polemics — at least if we may so 
judge by its great popularity. German Catholics of aver- 
age education found in the ^'Modernes A B C" an arsenal 
from which they could draw defensive weapons which were 
not less effective than easily handled. The number and the 
variety of the subjects treated and the ability with which 
they were discussed enabled the reader to give apt replies 
to all manner of objections brought against revealed re- 
ligion and the teachings of the Church. 

Recognizing the merit of the work, we very readily ac- 
ceded to a request of the Messrs. Benziger Brothers to re- 
produce it in the vernacular. The mere translation was ac- 
complished in a comparatively short space of time; and 
if we could have been satisfied with a bare rendering of 
the original into English The Catholic's Ready Answer 
would have seen the light of day long before the present 
date ; but as we proceeded with the translation we became 
more and more convinced that the new version, to meet the 
requirements of polemics in English-speaking countries, 
must diverge in some respects from the original. The need 
of much adaptation, of not a few omissions, and of a 
considerable number of additions seemed imperative. 

There was one peculiarity of the work which was quite 
distinctive of it and to which it doubtless owed much of its 
success, but which, nevertheless, we thought might be a 
drawback in regard to one class of readers whom we were 
anxious to reach. In the treatment of important subjects 
such as the Eucharist, Miracles, and Socialism the subject- 
matter was in each case broken up, distributed under a 
number of distinct captions, and despatched in short ar- 
ticles, which were crisp and to the point and served to 
equip the reader with ready answers, especially useful in 
an emergency. Very much of this character we have indeed 
sought to preserve in the work we have now sent to the 



vi Preface 

press; but in order to meet the wants of sincere inquirers 
after the truth, who are very numerous in English-speak- 
ing countries, and who would probably prefer a more full, 
thorough, and continuous discussion of the more important 
subjects, we have thought it advisable in some cases to unite 
the disjecta membra of the original in articles of excep- 
tional length. In the place of the subordinate topics thus 
left untreated separately, cross-references, aided by the in- 
dex at the end of the volume, will point them out to the 
reader in the logical position they occupy in the longer ar- 
ticles. This method we have adopted the more readily as we 
have desired to make the work serve the purpose of a treat- 
ise, brief but fairly complete, on the evidences of religion. 

Finally, notwithstanding the general comprehensiveness 
of the original, it left untouched a certain number of sub- 
jects, e.g., Christian Science, Pragmatism, Theosophy, which 
of late years have arrested the attention of the Christian 
apologist. Articles on these subjects we have thought it 
our duty to supply. 

In the pursuit of these aims we have not been unaware 
that our book has been gradually assuming the character 
of a new work instead of being simply an English version 
of the old one. If this has been, in some sense, inevitable, 
and if it compasses the object we have had in view, our act 
of contrition for having tampered with the able work of a 
skilled controversialist will perhaps be somewhat qualified. 

Both in the original and in the English adaptation the 
work, though chiefly polemical in its scope, does not strictly 
confine itself to controversy, but endeavors to inculcate 
right notions of individual duty, especially as bearing on 
situations in which conscientious persons often find them- 
selves in the very complex life of the present age. This is 
particularly the case in the articles on Mixed Marriages, 
Divorces, Labor Unions, and Education, which we trust will 
be helpful to those whose principles are in danger of being 
warped under the influence of their environment. 

Whilst thanking the Author of the * ' Modemes ABC" 
for his permission both to translate and to adapt the work, 
let us express the hope that in the not distant future he 
may be gratified to know that the seeds of truth which he 
has sown broadcast in his native land have, by propagation^ 
borne fruit bevond the sea. 



CONTENTS 



AGNOSTICISM ,acb 

■VAn Agnostic Query — "Why trouble ourselves about mat- 
ters such as God's existence, of which, however impor- 
tant they may be, we do know nothing?" (Huxley) ... 7 

ANGLICANS 
See '^Religion, A Change of," and "The Church of Christ- 
How to Find It." 

APES AND MEN 
The Ai)e Theory — Man bears so striking a resemblance to 
the ape that we are forced to conclude that he is de- 
scended from the ape 13 

BIBLE HEROES 
Objection — The heroes of the Old Testament are repre- 
sented as being special favorites of the Almighty, On 
the other hand, they seem to have had many vices. 
What, then, are we to think of the Bible as a teacher 
of morality or as a divinely inspired book? 16 

BLBLE INTERPRETATIONS 
Protestant Position — The Bible teaches aU necessary truth 
to all who approach the study of it in the right spirit. 
In the Scriptures God speaks to the human soul, and no 
interpreter of His words is needed but the soul itself, 
enlightened by the Holy Spirit 18 

BIBLE, THE, AND MODERN THOUGHT 

Objection — The Bible is for many reasons deserving of 
veneration, but it is quite out of harmony with modern 
thought. The science, the aspirations, and the general 
point of view of the modern world are at the opx>osite 
I)ole from the contents of the Bible 22 

BIBLE "MYTHS" 

Objection— The Bible contains many stories that remind us 

forcibly of the myths of early pagan history. How 

can we be expected to believe the story of the Serpent 

vii 



viii Contents 

BIBLE "MYTB:S"— (Continued) face 

tempting Eve— that of the Flood, with its fabulous 
quantity of water — that of Noe collecting the countless 
species of animals? — And then, is not God frequently- 
represented in a strangely human way — when, for in- 
stance. He is described as taking slime and forming it 
into a human body, or as shaping Adam's rib into a 
woman — or when He is said to be moved to wrath, or 
to repent of His creation of man ? 29 

BIBLE, THE, AND THE PEOPLE 

An Accusation — It is notoriously the settled policy of Rom© 
to withhold the Bible from the people: witness the 
number of decrees on the subject in the history of the 
Papacy. Versions of the Bible in the language of the 
people have been an object of the Church's special 
aversion 37 

BIBLE, THE, AND SCIENCE 
Objections — According to the Bible the world was made in 
six days, whereas geology proves that enormous periods 
of time were required to bring the earth to its present 
condition. The earth, which astronomy has shown to be 
only a satellite of the sun, is represented by the Bible 
as having been created before the sun ; and the heavenly 
bodies, generally, are described as though they were 
lamps hung in the heavens to light the earth 44 

BIBLE, THE, AND TRADITION 
Protestant View — The Bible alone is the Christian's rule of 

faith 48 

BLESSED VIRGIN, THE 
Objections — To a non- Catholic, devotion to the Virgin Mary 
seems to be given a very undue prominence in Catholic 
worship: witness the feasts of Mary and the frequent 
devotions to Mary. Besides, there is little or nothing 
to distinguish this homage from a real worship of one 
of God's creatures 64 

BOYCOTTS 
See "Labor Unions" 

CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT COUNTRIES 
The Charge — The leading countries of the world to-day are 
Protestant. Great Britain, Germany, and the United 



Contents ix 

CATHOLIC AND PKOTESTANT COUNTKIES— (Con^.) 
States are the foremost nations in point of political ^^^^ 
power, commerce and industry, and general enlighten- 
ment; whilst Catholic countries, such as Spain, Italy, 
and Ireland, are very unprogressive, and France is ap- 
parently on the decline 58 

CELIBACY 
A Prejudice — "Take from the Catholic Church the compul- 
sory celibacy of its priests, and the universal sway of 
the Church is at an end." Celibacy is unbiblical and 
its effect on morality is dubious. — Tschackert 63 

CEEEMONIES IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 
Erroneous View — The public worship of the Catholic 
Church captivates the senses, but it savors little of 
adoration in spirit and in truth. — Tschackert 65 

CHANCE 
A Thoughtless Assertion — The world owes its existence to 

chance ^'^ ^ 

"CHRISTIAN SCIENCE" 
The New Religion — "Christian Science is based on teach- 
ings of Scripture which it interprets, giving the Christ 
principle in divine metaphysics which heals the sick 
and sinner. It explains all cause and effect as mental, 
and shows the scientific relation of man to God." — 
Mrs. Eddy's "Science and Health" 68 

CHRIST'S DIVINITY 
A Modern Pronouncement — One of the results of modern 
criticism is that Jesus of Nazareth no longer stands 
upon the lofty eminence on which His adorers had 
placed Him. He now takes rank only with those great 
men who approach nearest to the divine. In the light 
of modern criticism His miracles are shorn of their 
supernatural character. Neither His words nor His 
works prove Him to have been more than man 74 

CHURCH OF CHRIST, THE— HOW TO FIND IT 

Objection — If the true Church of Christ is still in exist- 
ence the claimants to that title are so numerous that 
the problem of finding the Church is beyond the pow- 
ers of any but extraordinary minds. The average man 
might be excused if he gave up the search 97 



X Contents 

CHUECH, THE, AS MEDIATOR page 
Objection — The Church thrusts herseK between Christ and 
mankind; and yet Christ is our one Mediator with 
God. None the less the Church has lost the world- 
subduing power she once possessed 119 

CHURCH, THE, AND SALVATION 
Objection — Catholics are taught that outside the Church of 
Rome there is no salvation. It is a poor recommenda- 
tion of the Roman religion that it sends the majority 
of men to eternal perdition 122 

COMMUNION UNDER ONE EIND 

Objection — "The cuppe of the Lord is not to be denied to 
the laye people. For both the parts of the Lord's Sacra- 
ment, by Christe's ordinaunce and commaundement, 
ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike." — 
TMrty-nine Articles of the Church of England, Art. 20. 125 

CONFESSION DIVINELY INSTITUTED 
Objection — It is not in the power of the creature to forgive 
offenses committed against the Creator; hence confes- 
sion, in which the priest presumes to pardon sins, can 
not be of divine institution 129 

CONFESSION AND THE PEOPLE 

Some Common Accusations — Confession — at least private 
confession — is an invention of the priests. It is the 
secret force by which the Roman Church enslaves the 
consciences of the people. One of the worst features 
of auricular confession is the practice of questioning 
penitents about their sins 136 

CREATION 

See "God's Existence" 

CREEDS AND DEEDS 
Erroneous View — Right conduct does not seem to depend 
much upon formulas of belief. There are good and bad 
men in all religions. The great thing, after all, is to do 
what is right 141 

CREMATION 

Objection — What is to prevent a Christian — Catholic or 
non-Catholic — from directing that his body be burned 
after his death? There is nothing intrinsically wrong 



Contents xi 

CREMATION— (Continued) page 

in cremation and it may be made an important factor 
in public sanitation 144 

DAKWIN 

A Misapprehension — Darwin was "the incorporated ideal of 
a man of science." — Huxley, as quoted by President 
Schurman. Darwin was not a Christian, and the 
weight of his authority must help considerably to tip 
the balance in favor of unbelief 146 

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE 
Objection — The Catholic Church is continually introducing 
new dogmas. Such innovations are not within the com- 
petence of the Church, which received the deposit of 
the Faith to be transmitted unchanged to the end of 
time. Papal infallibility became an article of faith only 
thirty or forty years ago. Did the Vatican Council 
receive a new revelation on the subject? 150 

DIVORCE 

Objection — The Catholic Church forbids divorce in all 
cases. This law is more severe than that taught by 
Christ Himself; for He tells the Pharisees (Matt. xix. 9) 
that at least on account of infidelity to the marriage 
bond a husband may leave his wife and marry another. 153 

DOGMAS 
Objection — The binding force of dogmas is an unendurable 
slavery for the human mind and an obstacle to scien- 
tific research. "Let us not forget that the manufacture 
of dogmas at the Vatican has not yet come to an end." 
— Tschackert 162 

EDUCATION. THE TRUE CHRISTIAN IDEAL 

Objections — Let the priests attend to religion — the school- 
master has nothing to do with it. The teaching of re- 
ligion is the work of the church and the Sunday-school. 
The school hours are short enough for the acquiring of 
the secular knowledge needed to fit the pupils to fill 
their respective places in life 164 

EQUALITY AMONGST MEN 
Objection — All men are the same at their birth. Why, then, 
are they divided later into classes? Before God they 
are equal. God is no respecter of persons 173 



xii Contents 

PACE 

EUCHAEIST, THE. I. THE EEAL PRESENCE 

Objection — The Roman Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist 
can not be deduced from the words of institution, "This 
is My body, etc.," for these words may be understood 
figuratively or spiritually 175 

EUCHARIST, THE. H. THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE 
RATIONAL 

Objections — The Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is re- 
pugnant to reason; for it is irrational to suppose that 
a body can be in two or more places at once, or that the 
body of the Lord can be contained within the compass 
of a host, or that the accidents of bread and wine, e.g., 
color, figure, taste, can remain without the substance of 
bread and wine 185 

EUCHARIST, THE. LEI. TRANSUBSTANTIATION 

Anglican Position — "Transubstantiation . . . can not be 
proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain 
words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacra- 
ment, and hath given occasion to many superstitions." 
—-Thirty-nine Articles of the English Church, Art. 28. 188 

EUCHARIST, THE. IV. ITS CONGRUITIES 

Objection — The Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is re- 
pugnant to all sense of fitness. We instinctively reject 
the notion that Christ's real body is given to us as food. 195 

EUGENICS 
An Accusation — Every human being should love his kind, 
and a love of his kind should awaken in his breast an 
interest in the future of his race. The improvement 
of the race is the object of eugenics, and a want of 
sympathy with the present eugenic movement betrays 
either selfishness or an unenlightened conservatism. . 199 

EVOLUTION 
An Evolutionary Boast — "In the theory of natural selection 
we have the key to 'the question of all questions,' to the 
great enigma of the place of man in nature and of his 
natural development." "The possibility of giving a me- 
chanical explanation of organic nature was not seen 
until Darwin provided a solid foundation for the theory 
of a descent." — Haeckel 207 



Contents xiii 

FAITH PAGE 

A Misconception — Faith is a groping in the dark. It is un- 
reasonable to admit anything without evidence. "To 
make an act of faith in the experiences of another is 
a thoughtless act, which afterward comes home to one 
in the shape of pestering doubts." — Harnack, "Dog- 
mengeschichte," I, p. 74 f 216 

FEEE LOVE 

A Socialist's Plea — The only true marriage is marriage 
founded in love. When love ceases it is immoral for 
the parties to remain united. Marriage is a private 
compact, in which no one but the married couple should 
have any say 218 

FREEMASONKY 

Objection — Why is the Church opposed to freemasonry 
without any distinction? Whatever may be the aims 
of masonry on the continent of Europe there is noth- 
ing hostile to the Catholic Church or to religion gen- 
erally in Anglo-American masonry, whose object is mu- 
tual aid among the members of the fraternity and the 
promotion of the spirit of brotherhood throughout the 
world 221 

FREE THOUGHT 

A Freethinking Reverie — A freethinker is the only one who 
knows what freedom means. He has burst the fetters 
of religious servitude, the most galling of all fetters, 
especially such as the Roman Church binds upon her 
subjects 228 

GALILEO 

See "Scientific Freedom" 

GOD'S EXISTENCE 

An Atheistic Gibe — Theism (a belief in a personal God) 
would have us divide the world into earth and sky. 
Men run about the earth and God is seated in the skies, 
whence He rules the earth. But astronomy steps in 
and removes the sky, and with it the God who dwells 
in it. Astronomy has pushed the limits of the universe 
so far as to leave no room for a God. — Schopenhauer. 230 



xiv Contents 

GOOD WORKS PAGE 

Objection — Good works are not necessary for salvation, for 
St. Paul says : "We account a man to be justified by 
faith alone, without the works of the Law." (Rom. 
iii. 28) 240 

GRACE 

Objection — Catholics are forever speaking of the necessity 
of grace. "Without grace I can do nothing," is the 
common formula; and yet I can do many a good deed 
without feeling the need of God's help 240 

HAECKEL 

On the Tripod — The development of the individual life 
from the embryo form is but a representation in little 
of the development of the entire species from a primi- 
tive form. This is that "irrefragable law which is the 
heaviest piece of artillery made to do battle for the 
truth. Under its repeated assaults the magnificent 
fabric of the Roman hierarchy will tumble like a house 
of cards."— Haeckel 242 

HELL 

Objection — God is good and merciful; but a good and mer- 
ciful God would not condemn a soul to eternal tor- 
ments; therefore the eternity of hell is a contradiction 
of our belief in His goodness and mercy 246 

HUMAN RACE, THE. HOW OLD IS IT? 

A Modern Objection — In the mud of the Mississippi skele- 
tons have been found that must have been there at least 
60,000 years. Hence the Bible's reckoning of four 
thousand years from Adam to Christ is discredited by 
physical science 249 

INDIFFERENTISM 

s- The Plea of the Indifferentist — Religious creeds are a mat- 
* ter of personal preference, and a search for the right 
creed, if there is any such thing, can not be expected 
of the average man. On the other hand, we all have a 
grasp of certain principles of morality which are the 
mainstay of society. With these society may well rest 
contented 252 



Contents xv 

INDTJT.GENCES page 

Erroneous Views — 1. Indulgences are an easy means of ob- 
taining pardon for sin — even future sin — ^without re- 
pentance. They have been applied to the releasing of 
souls from purgatory, and for that purpose they might 
be bought for money. — 2. "In theory [indulgences] 
always presupposed repentance; but as the business was 
managed in Germany [before the Eeformation] it 
amounted in the popular apprehension to a sale of ab- 
solution from guilt, or to the ransom of deceased 
friends from purgatory for money." — Fisher, "Outlines 
of Universal History," p. 397 260 

INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, THE 
See "Pope, The— His Prerogative of Infallibility" 

JESUS OF NAZAKETH. HIS EXISTENCE 

A Bold Assertion — It is not historically certain that Christ 
ever existed; and yet the whole of Christianity is based 
on the life of Christ 266 

JUSTIFICATION 

Lutheran View — "The doctrine of justification by faith 
alone is the new experience of salvation [Heilser- 
fahrung] first enjoyed by Luther and then transmitted 
to the Church."— Leimbach's "Hilfbuch" 268 

LABOR UNIONS 

A False Principle — Strikes, boycotts, and other such expe- 
dients employed by labor unions, are the only weapons 
they can wield in their defense. Why may they not be 
used in the most effective way possible? In time of 
war one can not be overnice in his choice of means to 
attain his end 271 

LATIN IN THE LITURGY 

Objection — Why use Latin in the liturgy? Why may not 
English-speaking nations use their own language, as 
the Greeks and Syrians use theirs? Latin is a strange 
tongue to the vast majority of worshipers 278 

LOURDES 
See "Miracles" 



xvi Contents 

MAKRIAGE A SACRAMENT ,ac. 

Ultra-Protestant View — "Marriage is an outward, material 
thing, like any other secular business. Marriage, with 
all that appertains to it, is a temporal thing and does 
not concern the Church at all, except in so far as it 
affects the conscience." — Luther 280 

MARRIAGE INDISSOLUBLE 
See "Divorce," "Free Love," and "Marriage a Sacrament" 

MASS, THE 
Protestant View — "The popish sacrifice of the Mass, as they 
call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ's one 
only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins 
of the elect." — Westminster Confession of Faith (Cal- 
vinistic) 284 

MATERIALISM 

! A Comfortable Error — The only practical philosophy of life 
'^' is materialism. Teaching as it does that all things are 
matter — that there is no soul, no immortality, no vir- 
tue, no vice, no heaven, no hell — it gives a man his 
first feeling of being released from bondage. Material- 
ism is, then, the real redemption of man 294 

MESSIAS, THE 
A New Error — The Messias can not be a definite person, or 
a real person of any description. The promised Messias 
is nothing else than the blessing that rests upon the 
Jewish race. Hence the Messias has already come. . . . 296 

MIND AND MATTER 
\ Erroneous View — ^Mind is only a phosphorescence of the 
brain. Hence mind — to call it by that name — is but a 
state or condition of matter. Spiritual mind or soul 
vanishes under the light of analysis and experiment. . 299 

MIRACLES 

Objections — 1. The universal experiment of mankind, as 
Hume reminds us, is a proof of the impossibility of 
miracles. 2. Reported miracles can not be proved to 
be real ones. 3. If miracles are possible, science has 
no meaning, as science has established the constancy 
and uniformity of natural laws, and miracles are vio- 
lations of natural laws. ...,,,.. 304 



Contents xvii 

MISSIONS FACE 

See "Church of Christ, The, How to Find It," and "Church, 
The, as Mediator" 

MIXED MAKRIAGES 

Objection — The evils of mixed marriages are exaggerated, 
especially in a country like ours, in which there is a 
growing liberality of sentiment in matters religioiis. 
In a country in which "live and let live"^ is the prevail- 
ing principle, Catholic husbands and wives have little 
to fear from the religious hostility of their partners 
in wedlock 322 

MONKS 

Objection — Monks and monasteries may have had a reason 
for existing in the Middle Ages, but in our day they 
have outlived their usefulness. The present age wants 
labor — social labor — and no praying or idleness. (So- 
cialistic) 327 

MORALITY AND ADENOIDS 

A Modern Error — Moral habit and action are traceable to 
the pathological condition of the body and the emo- 
tional state of the mind. Free will and divine grace 
have nothing to do with morality. Here is a schoolboy 
who but yesterday was dull and peevish and showed 
vicious propensities. He is sent to a physician, who 
discovers it is all a matter of adenoids! These once 
removed, he is a model of all that a schoolboy ought to 
be. Evidently, he has needed the divine less than the 
physician 328 

MORALITY WITHOUT RELIGION 

An Illusion — As men will never agree on the subject of 
religion the one remaining bond of society is morality 
without religion. Most men are agreed as to the es- 
sentials of morality. In this common sentiment, there- 
fore, must we seek the basis of the social life of the 
future 330 

MYSTERIES 

Objection — A mystery is either in accordance with or 
against reason. If the first is true there is no mystery 
at alL If the second is true mysteries must be rejected. 332 



xviii Contents 

OEIGINAL SIN ,age 

Protestant View — "Human nature, in consequence of 
Adam's sin, is utterly depraved." "As the Koman 
Church does not consider concupiscence sin, that is 
only another proof that she has an erroneous concep- 
tion of sin" 333 

PANTHEISM 

.^ A Pantheistic Plea — Pantheism, which teaches that Qod 

'' and the universe are one, has been held by so many 

eminent thinkers that it can not be so utterly foolish 

as it is sometimes considered; and the tendency toward 

pantheism is rapidly increasing 336 

PAUPEKISM 

(Anti- Socialistic) 
See "Socialism II — Its Philosophy of History" 

POPE, THE. I. SUCCESSOR OF ST, PETER IN THE 
ROMAN SEE 

Erroneous View — "On the subject of St. Peter's residence 
in Rome we possess no trustworthy information." — 
Schaefer's "Manual of Instruction," etc. — "It is only 
a guess . . . that St. Peter was ever at Rome at all; 
it is only a guess that he was ever Bishop of Rome." — 
Dr. Littledale 340 

POPE, THE. II. CHRIST'S VICAR 
Erroneous View — The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome is 
not founded on Scripture and is simply the result of a 
struggle for supremacy in which the Roman pontiff 
won 343 

POPE, THE. III. HIS PREROGATIVE OF INFAL- 
LIBILITY 

(To be read after the preceding article on the Pope as 
Vicar of Christ) 

Objection — To err is human. All men are subject to error, 
and the Pope is no exception. Is not the dogma of 
Papal infallibility a deification of the Pope ? 359 

PRAGMATISM 

An Old System Revamped — Truth is neither absolute nor 
eternal. The truth of a proposition is to be tested by 



Contents xix 

VR AGMATISM— (Continued) page 

the effects it produces on the mind that considers or 
accepts it — and, in general, by its influence on life. If 
it brings about a readjustment of one's ideas, or 
changes a mental attitude, or awakens a new motive of 
conduct, it has just that amount of truth. The truth 
of an idea is to be tested by how it works 370 

PRAYER AND NATURE'S LAWS 

Objections — 1. "The hearing of prayers for temporal bless- 
ings would be an interference with natural laws, which 
science demonstrates is impossible. 2. The hearing of 
such prayers would involve a miracle; but it is prepos- 
terous to suppose that God works a miracle every 
time He grants a temporal favor." — Professor Tyndall. 374 

PRIMACY OF THE POPE 
See "Pope, The. 11. Christ's Vicar" 

PROPERTY 
Erroneous View — "Private ownership is robbery." — Proud- 

hon 377 

PROTESTANTISM 
See "Reformation, The" 

PURGATORY 
Protestant View — The doctrine of purgatory is not Scrip- 
tural, nor does reason find sufiicient ground for ac- 
cepting it 380 

RATIONALISM 
Objection — I follow the light of my reason. I can not be 
forced to admit what I can not understand. Why was 
my reason given me ? 387 

REFORMATION, THE 
Protestant Position — The Reformation was "the restoration 
of the Church to the primitive truth and power of the 
Gospel of the Redemption." It has been a source of 
manifold blessings. To call it a revolution or rebellion 
is to slander it 388 

RELICS 

See "Saints" and "Superstition" 



XX 



Contents 



EELIGION, A CHANGE OF page 

Objections — "To change one's religion, or even one's com- 
munion, is a very serious and solemn, nay a very awful, 
step to take, whatever that religion may be." — R. F. 
Littledale. And why should I become a Roman Cath- 
olic? Is it possible that all these hard things I have 
heard said against the Roman Catholics have no foun- 
dation? And why should I leave a religion that has 
afforded me so much help and consolation? And then, 
too. Providence has placed me under the guidance of 
spiritual directors who bid me quiet my fears and re- 
main where I am; what warrant should I have for 
rejecting their counsel ? 393 

RELIGION. ISIT A PRIVATE AFFAIR? 

See "Socialism IV — Its Bearings on Religion" 

RESURRECTION OF CHRIST, THE 

Objections — 1. The disciples of Christ, in thinking He had 
risen from the dead, were laboring under an hallucina- 
tion. Their minds were so filled with the thought of 
the Master that faith and imagination combined to 
create an image of His living humanity, which they 
took for the reality. — ^Pfleiderer, Strauss, et al. 2. The 
story of the Resurrection can not be accepted as au- 
thentic because the number and order of succession of 
the Lord's apparitions to His disciples can not be ascer- 
tained with certainty. — Harnack 398 

RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, THE 

Objection — It is chemically impossible that men's bodies 
should rise from, their graves; for the same chemical 
elements have passed in succession into different human 
bodies. How can they be assigned to individual bodies 
at the Resurrection? A human corpse decays; in the 
course of time it becomes a fertilizer for grass; the 
grass is eaten by a cow; the cow finally becomes food 
for men 403 

REVELATION 

Objections — How can God, who is a Spirit and infinite, 
speak to men or make any revelation to them? Even 
if He could make a revelation, it would be unnecessary ; 
men by the aid of their understandings can arrive at a 
knowledge of God snd of natural religion and by the 
exercise of their wills lead a religious life 405 



Contents xxi 

KOMAN SEE, THE page 

See "Pope, The," I, II, III 
SAINTS 
Objections — The Catholic veneration of saints detracts 
much from the purity of divine worship, which should 
be concerned with God alone. The intercession of 
saints is a doctrine opposed to Scripture, for Christ 
alone is our advocate and mediator; and Scripture 
nowhere tells us that the dead can hear our prayers. . . 406 

SCIENCE AND FAITH 
A Grievous Error — In a truly scientific mind science and 
faith can not exist without coming into collision, for 
no one who knows and realizes the results of scientific 
research can remain a believer 413 

SCIENTIFIC FKEEDOM 
A Mistaken View — The authority claimed by the Catholic 
Church is an obstacle to modern scientific progress, its 
attitude toward physical science operating as a clog 
upon individual research 420 

SECKET SOCIETIES 
Objection — Why is the Church opposed to secret societies? 
If individuals may lawfully have secrets, why may so- 
cieties not have them ? 426 

SELF-DENIAL 
Objection — Self-denial can not be a virtue. It is a repress- 
ing of the sensuous inclinations; and yet these inclina- 
tions have been implanted in our souls by God Himself. 428 

SOCIALISM. L ITS ECONOMIC FALLACIES 

A Socialistic Argument — The workingman is the sole pro- 
ducer of wealth; therefore he should be the sole owner 
of it. And yet the capitalist appropriates nearly the 
whole product of the workingman's labor. The only 
remedy for this abuse is the socialistic commonwealth, 
each member of which will be insured the possession 
of what he produces 430 

SOCIALISM. II. ITS PHILOSOPHY OF HISTOKY 

Socialistic Delusions — "Two great discoveries, the material- 
istic conception of history and the revealing of the 
secret of capitalistic production by means of surplus 
value, we owe to Marx. Through them socialism has 
become a science." — Frederick Engels 439 



xxii Contents 

SOCIALISM. III. ITS IMPEACTICABILITY page 

A Dream — Socialism will turn a complex problem into a 
very simple one. Instead of attempting to secure jus- 
tice for all classes it will abolish all distinction of 
classes. All must be workers. The one class, the peo- 
ple, will own its own industries, work for itself, and 
pay itself according to the work done 446 

SOCIALISM. IV. ITS BEARINGS ON RELIGION 

A Snare — Religion is a private affair. The social democ- 
racy is concerned "solely with the purely secular ques- 
tions connected with the struggle for economic, social, 
and political emancipation. Social democracy never 
asks its followers what religious opinions they hold; 
and in general its position toward religion is that of a 
neutral." (Von VoUmar, in the Reichstag, Dec. 5, 
1900.) 447 

SOUL 

Objection — Observation and experiment have failed to dis- 
cover the existence of a soul in man. The so-called 
spiritual acts that are supposed to prove the existence 
of a spiritual soul have been discovered to be modifica- 
tions of the cell- tissue of the brain 452 

SPIRITISM 

It is contended in favor of spiritism that the phenomena 
which it presents are a plain matter of observation and 
evidence and are attested by numerous and trustworthy 
witnesses. They are to be accepted as any other facts 
are accepted for which we have the evidence of our 
senses; but if they are accepted they will revolutionize 
religious thought 456 

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION 

An Argument — There was a time when no living thing, 
plant or animal, existed on the earth. Therefore, when 
living things appeared they must have been evolved out 
of non-living matter ; the organic must have grown out 
of the inorganic 462 

STRIKES 
See "Labor Unions" 



Cmxtents xxiii 

SUPEKSTITION page 

A Groundless Accusation — The Catholic Church permits, 
and even fosters, every manner of superstition. The 
Mass, the worship of images and relics,^ the use of 
scapulars, beads, Agnus Deis — to all of which a special 
supernatural virtue is attributed — furnish abundant 
proof of the accusation 466 

THEOSOPHY 

Its Pretensions — Theosophy is the only system of thought 
that furnishes a key to the mysteries of human life 
and explains the presence of evil in the world. The 
number and the respectability of its adherents and the 
wondrous power displayed by some of them are no small 
argument in favor of the intrinsic value of the system. 469 

TOLEKA^^CE 

An Accusation — Tolerance is the first duty of the citizen 
as regards religious matters; but "the Koman Cath- 
olic Church, if it would be consistent, must be intoler- 
ant."— Tschackert 475 

TRADITION AS A RULE OF FAITH 

Objection — Tradition can not be a source of true knowledge. 
There is nothing as unreliable as an old story that has 
passed from mouth to mouth and is subject to change 
at every telling. Even written documents are not safe 
from alteration. Every new copy made is likely to 
contain fresh errors 476 

TRANSUBSTANTIATION 
See ''Eucharist, The. m. Transubstantiation" 

TRIKETY, THE 
Objection — The mystery of the Trinity is at odds with the 

multiplication table: one, surely, can not be three. .. . 478 

VALUE, SOCIALIST THEORY OF 

See "Socialism I. Its Economic Fallacies" 

VIRGINITY 
The Plea of the Flesh — The leading of a pure life in a state 

of virginity is impossible for natures like ours 480 

VIRGIN MARY, THE 
See "Blessed Virgin, The" and "Saints" 



The Catholic's Ready Answer 



AGNOSTICISM 

An Agnostic Query. — "Why trouble ourselves 
about matters — such as God's existence — of 
which, however important they may be, we do 
know nothing and can know nothing?" (Hux- 

ley.) 

The Answer. — If a man tells me lie knows nothing about 
God I can believe him, because he is supposed to know the 
state of his own mind ; but if he tells me that nothing can 
be known about God I wonder at the hardihood of the as- 
sertion and feel that I have a right to ask him to prove the 
proposition. But proving propositions is not a role familiar 
to agnostics as such. 

What is an agnostic 1 The definition given by the Cen- 
tury Dictionary is sufficiently accurate for our purpose. 
An agnostic is ' ' one of a class of thinkers who disclaim any 
knowledge of God or of the ultimate nature of things.'' 
Agnostics, generally, profess to know nothing about God; 
some maintain that there is no convincing evidence of His 
existence ; others go so far as to aver that no such evidence 
is possible and that God, if there is a God, is forever un- 
knowable. 

Agnosticism takes shape in individual minds according to 
their several habits and dispositions. One form of agnosti- 
cism assumes lightly and after little or no reflection that it 
is impossible to get at a knowledge of God or of man's 
final destiny. It is generally one of the fruits of indiffer- 
entism, which makes it a matter of small concern whether a 
man has any religious belief or not, so long as he does noth- 
ing to compromise his honor or his reputation. Another 
agnostic attitude of mind is the result of promiscuous 
though one-sided reading accompanied, perhaps, by a modi- 
cum of reflection — though its real root often lies deeper 

7 



8 Agnosticism 

and must be sought in the moral nature of the reader. But 
there is a higher kind of agnosticism which wears more of a 
scientific air. It goes the whole length of asserting that all 
knowledge is confined to phenomena or appearances. 

Observation and experiment, we are told by this class of 
agnostics, report to us the existence of phenomena which 
are, or may be, manifestations of realities lying beyond 
them, but of these realities nothing is known and, according 
to some agnostics, nothing can be known. Hence God and 
the human soul and all the essences and principles of things, 
placed as they are beyond the reach of experience, cannot 
be objects of human knowledge. 

One type of agnosticism, elaborately expounded by Her- 
bert Spencer, does not reject religion, but starves it out of 
existence. It acknowledges a First Cause of all things and 
holds that it appeals to the emotional element in man and 
thus begets religion; but the nature and attributes of the 
First Cause it regards as unknown and forever unknow- 
able : the First Cause is to us simply the First Cause and 
nothing more. 

Now it should be plain to any one who has a grasp of the 
idea of religion that the First Cause, merely as such, does 
not appeal to the religious sentiment and cannot inspire 
religious acts. True, the idea of a First Cause does contain 
in germ the basis of all genuine religion; for the human 
reason can deduce from the notion of the First Cause the 
idea of an infinite and eternal God and of a Creator and 
Sovereign Lord, to whom praise, thanksgiving, adoration, 
and service are due — and these are real acts of religion; 
but the Spencerian agnostic will not permit us to draw any 
such deductions; for, according to Herbert Spencer, **the 
Power which the Universe manifests to us is utterly in- 
scrutable." Thus the only pabulum supplied religion is a 
knowledge of a First Cause as such. 

What single act of religion can an agnostic of this type 
suggest as being rational in one who only knows that there 
is a First Cause? Wonder and a sense of awe are indeed 
feelings which may well be awakened by the thought of a 
First Cause of all things ; but is the indulgence of a feeling 
of wonder or of awe a religious act ? As weU might we say 
that an atheist is paying his morning devotions when he 
stands wondering at the power of Niagara. Will such 
meager knowledge inspire an act of praise or of thanks- 



Agnosticism 9 

giving? We are not supposed to know whether the First 
Cause is deserving of praise or of thanks, for the agnostic 
will not permit us to know anything about Its (or His) 
attributes — to know, for instance, whether It (or He) is 
free, bountiful, or merciful. The same is true of adoration 
and dedication of will. The only act left would be that of 
exclaiming, ''Oh, First Cause!" or ''Ah, First Cause!" 
Herbert Spencer had much better have left the subject of 
religion untouched. 

Our purpose just here is not to prove that God is know- 
able or that He exists; that we have endeavored to 
do in the article entitled ' ' God 's Existence. ' ' We are only 
making a little study of the agnostic frame of mind and of 
the intellectual behavior of agnostics. One of the most 
notable points in agnostic ways of thinking and speaking 
is the downright dogmatism of the agnostic. If the attitude 
of agnosticism were one of simple ignorance or of doubt, or 
if its followers simply admitted their inability to see the 
force of the arguments in favor of theism, agnosticism 
would be less irrational. But for the most part agnostics 
are nothing if not dogmatic. They assert positively that the 
Absolute is unknowable ; but in doing so they show an atti- 
tude of mind which is anything but scientific and one that 
runs counter to the spirit of inquiry which is the boast of 
the age. Scientists of our day, whether consistently or not, 
profess an open-mindedness which makes them accessible to 
truth, no matter in what quarter it presents itself, and 
which tends rather to widen than to contract the domain 
of possible knowledge. 

These remarks are particularly applicable to agnostics 
who devote their energies to the physical sciences. Im- 
mersed in science and for the most part narrowed in their 
sympathies by early education, they simply have no pa- 
tience for examining the claims of any source of knowledge 
but the one that is familiar to them. The following extract 
from Huxley's "Physical Basis of Life" will illustrate this 
pseudo-scientific frame of mind. Commending Hume's ag- 
nostic achievements, he remarks : 

"So Hume's strong and subtle intellect takes up a great 
many problems about which we are naturally curious, and 
shows that thej^ are essentially questions of lunar politics, 
in their essence incapable of being answered, and therefore 
not worth the attention of men who have work to do in the 



10 Agnosticism 

world. . . . Why trouble ourselves about matters of which, 
however important they may be, we do know nothing and 
can know nothing? We live in a world which is full of 
misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all 
of us is to make the little corner he can influence somewhat 
less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was be- 
fore he entered it." 

Huxley was a feverishly busy man during the greater 
part of his life. His business was chiefly concerned in ex- 
tending the bounds of physical science. His philosophical 
reading was one-sided and his survey of the field of philo- 
sophical inquiry superficial; so that it ill became him to 
pronounce so decidedly on what could or could not be 
known in sciences which he had not mastered. 

The physical sciences are not the only legitimate occu- 
pants of the field of knowledge. Psychology and natural 
theology are sciences no less, nay even more, than physics, 
chemistry, and biology; for the latter sciences, when they 
have got beyond a certain number of laws which may easily 
be verified, deal very largely in pure hypotheses. The ra- 
tional sciences, on the other hand, are concerned with ulti- 
mate truths, at which the experimental sciences must stop 
short. The processes of thought followed are, to say the 
least, as rational as those of the physical sciences. When 
the rational psychologist argues from the spiritual opera- 
tions of man to his possession of a spiritual soul, or when 
the theologian argues from the order observed in the uni- 
verse to the existence of a Supreme Intelligence by whom 
that order was conceived and brought into being, or when 
the metaphysician argues from the finite and the condi- 
tioned to the Infinite and the Unconditioned, he argues as 
rationally, to say the least, as one who would conclude from 
the presence of smoke the action of combustion. 

And yet the reasonings and conclusions of the rational 
sciences have been brushed aside by the agnostics and posi- 
tivists of our day, but in many cases by men who have not 
hesitated to reason away the human mind itself. Hume, 
who set the pace for all such destructionists, regarded the 
mind as only a series of conscious acts. He removed the 
blackboard from the figures described on it and left the fig- 
ures standing in the air. When a man has reached that 
stage of intellectual degeneracy he may be tempted to deny 
anything, even his own existence. 



Agnosticism 11 

Metaphj'sics and theology have unfortunately fallen into 
disrepute in an age that boasts so much of its ''positive" 
knowledge; for both sciences are accused of building airy 
fabrics of thought on little or no foundation of reality. 
Well, there may be a species of metaphysics or of theology 
answering that flattering description, but we challenge the 
judgment that affixes any such stigma to the writings of the 
great scholastics. The reasonings of an Aquinas, a Scotus, 
or a Suarez are not to be rated as puerilities. These names 
may suggest a remote age and things no less remote from 
our interest, but the cream of the scholastic philosophy is 
given in the higher course of studies in every Catholic col- 
lege. Had our scientific agnostics been put through the 
discipline involved in those studies the world would know 
little of dogmatic agnosticism. As to the theology that deals 
with revelation, it is based on evidence as positive as am- 
that furnishes the groundwork of the physical sciences. 
The historical evidences of Christianity have won the as- 
sent of countless brilliant minds in every century — the nine- 
teenth and twentieth centuries not excepted. Pasteur tow- 
ered above all the other scientists of the nineteenth century, 
and yet he accepted the teachings of Catholic theolog^\ 

We believers do not contend that our knowledge of God 
is perfect. We claim to possess an imperfect yet true knowl- 
edge of God. If we can not comprehend His attributes we 
can at least form some conception of them and give them 
their right names. The Infinite transcends experience and 
is necessarily wrapped in mystery to the finite mind; but 
we can know it as a fact, incomprehensible though it is. 
When we say that God is infinite we mean that He pos- 
sesses all conceivable perfections — a perfectly rational 
proposition and one within the range of human thought. 

The illogicality of the agnostic mind when it makes a 
serious attempt at philosophizing is brought into strong re- 
lief by the writings of Herbert Spencer. Though an agnos- 
tic, he arrives at the conclusion that behind phenomena 
there is an unknowable Something — the Absolute, the Un- 
limited, the First Cause. Is it not strange that such a Being 
is deemed unknowable when we know so much as that about 
Him ? And must we be forbidden to advance a step farther 
and deduce from those x>rimal attributes other attributes 
which are logically contained in them? 

It borders on the ridiculous to see a philosopher of Her- 



12 Agnosticism 

bert Spencer's reputation shrinking from concluding that 
the Great First Cause is intelligent, because, forsooth, if 
we attribute to It intelligence, it must be finite intelligence, 
as that is the only kind of intelligence of which the mind 
can form a conception. In dealing with an argument of 
that description we can clinch the matter by means of a 
dilemma : The Great First Cause is either intelligent or non- 
intelligent. Is It non-intelligent ? Spencer cannot say Yes, 
for amidst all his vagaries he has a grasp of the principle 
that an intelligent piece of work — such as the universe — 
proves intelligence in the worker. Therefore in some way 
the Great First Cause must be intelligent. The intelligence 
we thus predicate of God need not be a limited intelligence ; 
for we may take the notion of intelligence and negative all 
limitation and imperfection in it and apply it to God. We 
can not bring home to our limited understandings how any 
being can be infinitely intelligent, nor can we find in our 
experience anything analogous to it, but our reason points 
to it as a fact — a mysterious fact, but a fact all the same. 

If we now add intelligence to the list of God 's attributes, 
God is more known than He was before ; and if we add, one 
after another, all the attributes which a sound philosophy 
has deduced, we shall have built up the science of natural 
theology, and Herbert Spencer wiU be left wandering about 
in the curious labyrinth which he has been at such pains to 
construct. 

We need not shrink from all manner of philosophizing 
on arriving at the confines of the Absolute; because al- 
though we are only scratching on the surface of things, 
nevertheless, by the aid of the God-given instrument we 
employ, we are enabled to discover at least a few solid ingots 
of genuine knowledge. 

ANGLICANS 

See ''Religion, a Change of*' and ''The Church of Christ 
—How to Find It.'' 



Apes and Men 13 

APES AND MEN 

The Ape-Theory. — Man bears so striking a re- 
semblance to the ape that we are forced to con- 
clude that he is descended from the ape. 

The Answer. — In the first place, why argue from resem- 
blance to descent? Or, if you argue at all, why not con- 
clude that the ape is a degenerate man? Both arguments 
would be unsound, but the one would be as good as the 
other. What interest can you have in thus degrading man 
by bringing him down to the level of the ape? Better 
argue thus: So striking is the contrast between man and 
ape that man could not possibly have been evolved from 
the ape. 

The contrast consists chiefly in this, that man has a soul 
endowed with reason and free will, which the ape has not. 
This is abundantly proved by the fact that man, by means 
of thought and reflection, advances from one invention 
or discovery to another, whilst the ape, in common with 
other brute animals, follows his instincts and behaves to- 
day precisely as his ancestors did thousands of years ago. 
He has not learned to build houses, to cook his food, or to 
do anything characteristic of man in the most rudimentary 
degree of civilization. The ape's power of mimicrj^ is a 
superficial attribute which furnishes no proof of reason or 
thought. 

Even in bodily structure the contrast is so obvious, at 
least to the anatomist, that no basis for the evolutionary 
theory can be found in that quarter. This is especially 
evident in the size of the brain, as also in the way in which 
the skull is joined to the spinal column — a circumstance 
that determines whether the animal is to have the erect 
posture of a man or the stooping posture of a beast. ' ' The 
testimony of comparative anatomy," says Bumiiller, ''is 
decidedly against the theory of man's descent from the 
ape." — Man or Ape, p. 59. 

Moreover, if such descent were a fact we should find 
some intermediate forms between the mere ape and the 
fully developed man. We should have found long before 
to-day what is popularly known as the missing link; but 
the missing link has nowhere been discovered, either in 
fossil remains or in living forms of animal life. The earth 
has been ransacked, but not a trace has come to light of 



14 Apes and Men 

the much sought for ape-man. Occasionally supposed dis- 
coveries have created a flutter in the scientific world, but 
they have invariably proved to be mares' nests. And yet 
if Darwin's theory of infinitesimal variations cover- 
ing enormous periods of time were correct numerous 
specimens of intermediate forms should have been dis- 
covered. 

The distinguished scientist Virchow, who certainly can 
not be accused of undue bias in the matter, bears the fol- 
lowing testimony to the actual state of science on the sub- 
ject: 

' ' If we make a study of the fossil man of the quaternary 
period, who came nearest to our historical ancestors in the 
course of descent — or, better, of ascent — ^we find at every 
turn that he is a man like ourselves. Ten years ago, when 
a skull was found in a peat-bog, among lake-dwellings, or 
in some ancient cave, it was thought to furnish indications 
of a wild and half-developed state of human existence. Men 
thought they scented the atmosphere of apedom. But since 
then a gradual change has been wrought in our estimate of 
such remains. The old troglodytes, lake-dwellers, and peat 
men have turned out to be a very respectable set of human 
beings. Their heads are of such a size that many a living 
man to-day would feel proud if he had one as large. . . . 
We must candidly acknowledge that we possess no fossil 
types of imperfectly developed men. Nay, if we bring to- 
gether all human fossils of which we have any knowledge 
and compare them with human beings of the present day, 
we can assert without any hesitation that among living 
men there is, proportionately, a much larger number of 
individuals of an inferior type than among the fossil re- 
mains thus far discovered. Whether the greatest geniuses 
of the quaternary age have been lucky enough to have 
been preserved to our day, I dare not conjecture. . . . But I 
must say that no skull of ape or ape-man which could have 
had a human possessor (or, as we take him to mean, could 
have been in any half -sense human) has ever yet been 
found. . . . We cannot teach, nor can we regard as one of 
the results of scientific research, the doctrine that man is 
descended from the ape or from any other animaV — The 
Liberty of Science, p. 30 f. 

In the Congress of Anthropologists held in Vienna in 
1889 he adds the following to the words just quoted : 



Apes and Men 15 

*'We have sought in vain the missing links that are sup- 
posed to connect man with the ape. The primeval man, 
the genuine proanthropos, has not yet been found. An- 
thropologists cannot regard the proanthropos as a legiti- 
mate subject for discussion. They may see him in their 
dreams, but in their waking moments they must acknowl- 
edge him to be nowhere in sight. At Innsbruck in 1869 
scientists in the fever-heat of discussion believed they could 
trace the evolution of the ape into the man ; to-day we are 
unable to trace the derivation of one race of men from 
another. At the present hour we can say that the fossil 
men discovered stand as far removed from the ape as our- 
selves. Each living race is distinctively human, and no 
race has yet been discovered which can be designated as 
apish or half-apish. ... It can be clearly shown that in 
the course of five thousand years no appreciable change of 
type has taken place." 

Dr. Bumiiller sums up the results of his study of the 
question in the following statements, every one of which 
rests upon solid demonstration : 

' ' On no recognized principle of classification can man be 
associated with the ape ; for, to say nothing of his gifts of 
understanding and speech, he stands quite alone by reason 
of the vastly superior development of the brain portion of 
his nervous system, and hence can lay claim to an inde- 
pendent position in the animal kingdom. Neither is his 
descent from the ape attested by science, for as yet no con- 
necting link has been discovered, either in the higher walks 
of apedom or in the lower walks of humanity. Even the 
possibility of a connecting link is disproved by the ten- 
dency of apes and half -apes, in the course of their higher 
development in anatomical structure, to diverge more and 
more from the human type, and by the testimony of pale- 
ontology (the science dealing with remains of extinct spe- 
cies of animals preserved in the earth) . Such is the present 
state of scientific investigation; and its results are in har- 
mony with the view which the human understanding, lay 
and professional, has ever entertained when not under the 
tyranny of theories that happen to be the fashion of the 
hour." — Man or Ape, p. 91. Munich, 1900. 

Dr. Zittel, an acknowledged leader in this branch of 
science, enumerates in his ** Outlines of Paleontology" the 
most important discoveries made of human remains and 



16 Bible Heroes 

makes the following comment: ''Such material as this 
throws no light upon the question of race and descent. All 
the human bones of determinable age that have come down 
to us from the European Diluvium, as well as all the skulls 
discovered in caves, are identified by their size, shape, and 
capacity as belonging to the homo sapiens [man], and are 
fine specimens of their kind. They do not by any means 
fill up the gap between man and the ape. ' ' 

Dr. Ranke, another eminent paleontologist, speaks with 
evident sarcasm, and in reference to certain scientific pre- 
tensions, of "the famous, or perhaps better, the notorious *' 
relics discovered in the Neanderthal. 

Science, after its many wanderings, is coming back to 
what Holy Writ has told us in words few and simple : ' ' And 
the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth, and 
breathed into his face the breath of life ; and man became 
a living soul" (Gen. ii. 7). "And God created man to His 
own image" (Gen. i. 27). 



BIBLE HEROES 

Objection.— The heroes of the Old Testament 
are represented as being special favorites of the 
Almighty. On the other hand, they seem to have 
had many vices. What, then, are we to think of 
the Bible as a teacher of morality or as a divine- 
ly inspired book? 

The Answer. — The Patriarchs and some of the other 
leaders of the Jewish people are indeed represented as 
favorites of the Almighty on account of their great per- 
sonal virtues. They may have had their failings as well, 
but their lives were written, not so much on account of 
their personal qualities as with a view to exhibiting the 
special providence that presided over the destinies of their 
race. As fathers and leaders of the Chosen People they 
were objects of God's special care. But that did not ex- 
empt them from the failings to which all flesh is heir. Need- 
less to say that their faults, great or small, have met with 
scant justice at the hands of the skeptical and the critical. 

The faults of Bible characters, such as they were, show 
by their very presence in the narrative that the sacred 



Bible Heroes 17 

writers had no thought of giving a roseate hue to their 
descriptions of the deeds of their countrymen, and that 
their single aim was to give a trustworthy report of facts. 
This is, indeed, the unique distinction enjoyed hy the Bible 
among the historical records of ancient peoples: even un- 
worthy deeds associated with great names are faithfully 
registered. Unlike other such records, the books of the 
Bible were not composed as a tribute of adulation to reign- 
ing dynasties or to serve as a flattering unction to na- 
tional vanity. The writers penned an exact and impartial 
account of God's dealings with men and of men's behavior 
toward God. There is no similar record in existence. None 
like it ever could have arisen out of the bosom of paganism. 

The real and genuine shortcomings of Bible heroes we 
cannot, of course, either palliate or deny. The Bible itself 
condemns them. But at the same time we must refuse to 
accept the judgment of sworn enemies of the Bible when 
they are pleased to ascribe faults, even crimes, to the great 
personages of the Bible where there is no evidence of guilt. 

Because Abraham, for instance, made his wife Sara pass 
for his sister when both were in danger of falling into the 
hands of the King of Egypt, we cannot agree with the 
critics when they set him down as an instigator of lying. 
His accusers ignore the fact that in Abraham's language 
the word ''sister" had a larger signification than in our 
modern tongues, and the fact that, after all, Sara was 
Abraham 's half-sister, and hence might be called simply his 
sister. 

In the same censorious spirit the critics characterize 
David as a captain of bandits and a usurper of the throne. 
They have lost the key to the interpretation of the facts. 
The very first and last fact in Jewish history is forgotten, 
namely, that the Jewish form of government was a theoc- 
racy. God Himself was in a very special sense the Ruler 
of the nation. In His hands were the making and unmak- 
ing of its kings. If Saul was rejected and David made to 
reign in his stead, it was done by divine appointment, and 
David was consequently no usurper. If David before 
ascending the throne acted on his own responsibility and 
took the field against the enemies of his people who wtre 
inflicting serious harm upon them, he did nothing incon- 
sistent with just warfare. Neither this nor anything which 
he did in self rdef ense constituted him a bandit. 



18 Bihle Interpretations 

In the heyday of prosperity David did indeed commit 
a twofold sin of a most grievous nature ; but the description 
of this event and of its consequences, whilst showing on 
the one hand the rigor of God's justice, presents on the 
other a most remarkable example of repentance in an of- 
fender — a repentance that charmed the heart of God Him- 
self. The Lord deigned to call him a man after His own 
heart and to show him, and his descendants for his sake, 
the mercy of a Father. Surely this touching example of 
mercy — so characteristic, if we may use the expression, of 
God's dealings with men — ought to move the reader of the 
sacred narrative to adoration and love rather than arm him 
against the object of God's clemency. 

The defender of the Bible is not bound to find an excuse 
for every act of the patriarchs that seems in any way 
dubious. In some cases those acts may have been in a 
greater or a lesser degree sinful. This is probably true in 
the case of Jacob when he personated his brother Esau and 
fraudulently obtained his father's blessing. True, he may 
have known from his mother, who certainly knew it by 
revelation (Gen. xxv. 23), that in the designs of Provi- 
dence he was to take precedence of his brother. But would 
that excuse the deception practised on his father? And 
yet if he sinned it does not follow that he sinned grievously, 
or that he should have ceased to be an object of God's 
special providence as a propagator of the Jewish race. 

The instances we have given of unfair criticism are sam- 
ples of the superficial judgments passed upon the behavior 
of the patriarchs and upon the spirit and character of the 
historical books of the Bible. 



BIBLE INTERPRETATIONS 

Protestant Position. — The Bible teaches all 
necessary truth to all who approach the study of 
it in the right spirit. In the Scriptures God 
speaks to the human soul, and no interpreter of 
His words is needed but the soul itself, enlight- 
ened by the Holy Spirit. 

Catholic Position. — The above, if we mistake not, is a 
fair statement of the Protestant view of private interpre- 
tation. It differs essentially from the Catholic principle, 



Bible Interpretations 19 

according to which private interpretation is controlled by 
the authority of a divinely established Church. 

But now a question : What are the grounds of the Prot- 
estant position? As the Bible is the Protestant's final rule 
of faith, he should be able to quote chapter and verse for 
this as well as for any other article of his faith. Where 
in the whole compass of the sacred writings is there a pas- 
sage enunciating the principle of private and independent 
interpretation? There are passages in abundance setting 
forth the benefits resulting from a reading of the Word 
of God, but none which declare that the individual reader 
is independent of all control in his interpretation of it. 

In opposing such independence we do not mean to imply 
that the Bible is simply an unintelligible book. Quite the 
contrary, many parts of Scripture are plain narratives of 
matters of fact, and the more obvious sense of the text is 
the true one, or at least one true one. But other parts of 
the Bible abound in mysteries, or in other obscurities of one 
kind or another. This was doubtless the case even in the 
original version of the several books; but what shall we 
say of the modern translations — the imperfect medium 
through which all but a few readers get a glimpse of the 
revealed truth? 

Now, is it likely that every chance reader, however good 
his disposition, possesses a ''key to the Scriptures" and 
sees his way through all their obscurity of thought and ex- 
pression? Is it not to be feared that the assumption of 
such power of interpretation will have injurious, and in 
some cases even disastrous, effects upon the reader? St. 
Peter the apostle, speaking of the epistles of St. Paul, says 
of them that they ** contain certain things hard to be un- 
derstood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they 
do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" 
(2 Peter iii. 16). If this declaration, made by no less an 
authority than St. Peter, and to the very people to whom 
the epistles of St. Paul were addressed, was justified at 
the time, is it not to be feared that now, after twenty cen- 
turies, the same causes are producing even worse effects? 

The Apostle here mentions two effects ^hich he traces 
to three causes. The two effects are: 1. The wresting — 
that is to say, the twisting or distorting — of the meaning of 
Scripture; 2. The spiritual self-destruction of the reader. 
The causes are; 1. The intrinsic difficulties of the text; 



20 Bihle Interpretations 

2. Ignorance ; 3. Instability (unstedfastness, as it reads in 
the Revised Version). The same three causes are in opera- 
tion to-day, and doubtless tend, in varj^ing degrees, to 
produce the same effects. The text, with its intrinsic diffi- 
culties, remains. Ignorance remains ; for the three R 's are 
the highest reach of knowledge for millions; and what 
special insight into Scripture is furnished by the three R's? 

But have not some gone much farther than the three 
R's? Surely; they have learned their chemistry, or their 
physics, or their mathematics. But none of these sciences 
furnish a key to the obscurities of St. Paul. But have we 
no theologians or exegetes ? Certainly we have ; and they 
have helped us not a little to understand the sacred volume ; 
but if we may believe Dr. Littledale it was just from this 
class that most of the ancient heresies took their rise ; and 
all the theology in the world can not, of itself, secure a man 
from that instability of which St. Paul speaks — ^that is to 
say, from that intellectual and moral giddiness which often 
accompanies the greatest learning. 

But, our opponents will tell us, at least let a man ap- 
proach the reading of the Scriptures in a prayerful spirit, 
and he may expect to receive interior illumination. Doubt- 
less a prayerful reading of Scripture has produced much 
insight into the meaning of the sacred text. But let us not 
mistake the issue in the present discussion. "We do not 
deny the possibility of personal illumination. God, from 
the beginning, has deigned to speak to the individual soul. 
But — and this is the most important thing we have to say 
in the present article — there is nothing more illusory than 
the impression of having been enlightened from on high; 
and in the whole course of religious history nothing has 
proved more pernicious than the seeing in supposed il- 
lumination a practical rule of faith or of conduct. 

Where God does really enlighten, no one can enlighten 
so well; but it is one thing to be enlightened, another to 
think one is enlightened. Many of our Catholic saints have 
received what they have described as marvelous illumina- 
tion, but none were more distrustful of such illumination 
than the very recipients of it. And yet just the contrary 
has been the case with those leaders of men from Luther 
to Mrs. Eddy who have confidently proclaimed a special 
illumination in their interpretation of Scripture. And 
when we see the number of such claimants to inspiration 



Bible Interpretations 21 

and compare their clashing creeds — all based on the same 
Word of God — and listen to the war of words in which each 
denounces all the others, we begin to see the utter hollow- 
ness of the theory of private interpretation. 

Eeligious chaos was never intended to be the result of the 
preaching of the Christian revelation. And yet chaos is 
the necessary result of Christian preaching when it is based 
on private interpretation. But worse than chaos are the 
ultimate logical consequences of the theory, for amidst the 
chaos at least some fragments of the truth remain; but 
even these are destined to disappear under the powerful 
solvent of independent judgment. The principle of private 
judgment is to-day working itself out most consistently in 
the land of its origin. In Germany individual judgment, 
even amongst the ministers of religion, who are supposed 
to have committed themselves to a fixed creed, is rapidly 
dissolving the fabric of Christianity itself. 

Personal illumination is, therefore, in no absolute sense 
a safe guide. In one's meditation on Scripture one may, 
of course, feel that reflection throws some light upon words 
or sentences heretofore obscure; many sound conclusions 
may be drawn; spiritual insight may increase; but still, 
considering that there are many things in Scripture ' ' hard 
to be understood," and that so many readers of Scripture 
have been mistaken in their interpretations, it is only ra- 
tional that one should submit to guidance, if a guide can 
be found. And that a guide has been provided by a kind 
Providence can not be matter of doubt when one reflects 
on the unspeakable wisdom displayed in all God's works 
and, on the other hand, on the sad consequences which are 
seen to follow the rejection of authority in so important 
a matter as the interpretation of the word of God. 

Evidently, then, there is an infallible interpreter ap- 
pointed by God Himself; and that infallible interpreter 
can be no other than the Church of Christ, which St. Paul 
tells us is **the pillar and ground of truth." (1 Tim. iii. 15.) 



22 Bible, The, and Modern Thought 

BIBLE, THE, AND MODERN THOUGHT 

Objection. — The Bible is for many reasons de- 
serving of veneration, but it is quite out of har- 
mony with modern thought. The science, the 
aspirations, and the general point of view of the 
modern world are at the opposite pole from the 
contents of the Bible. 

The Answer. — Language like this is held by persons in 
our day who fancy that all men of enlightenment have 
ranged themselves with science on the one side against 
the Bible and its adherents on the other. Is it not the 
unique distinction of the Bible that it has compelled the 
attention of the enlightened sinee the beginning of Chris- 
tianity? From the first great convert of St. Paul's at 
Athens to that group of brilliant minds, ending with St. 
Augustine, which adorned the early centuries of the 
Church, and thence onward to the great lights of the mod- 
ern world, we find the great minds of the world's history 
humbly accepting the Bible as the revealed Word of God 
and as their guide, conjointly with the Church, to eternal 
life. 

From the way our critics talk one would think that at 
least all men of science had discarded the Bible; and yet 
when the facts are inquired into it is found that the great 
leaders of science, the men without whom science would be 
whole centuries behind its present stage of development, 
have been sincere Christians and believers in the Bible. 
When we find a Bacon, a Copernicus, a Newton, a Leibnitz, 
or, to come down to our own generation, a Kelvin, a Pas- 
teur, clinging to the Bible, though standing themselves 
on the very pinnacle of science, we have good reason for 
thinking that science and the Bible are not such irrecon- 
cilable foes after all.^ 

The ranks of unbelievers have indeed swollen in our 
day, but the radical cause of this phenomenon does not lie 
in any shortcomings of the Bible. The cause is usually of 
a personal nature. It is natural that some should have a 
personal interest in wishing that the Bible were not au- 
thentic ; for if the contents of the Bible are true a personal 
service of God and a restraint of the passions are impera- 

iSee "Science and Faith," page 413. 



Bible, The, and Modern Thought 23 

tive. Thus the wish is father to the thought. And the 
habit of mind thus engendered is fostered by a neglect of 
the duties of religion. Faith is a grace, and grace is for- 
feited by a failure to correspond to it. A personal shrink- 
ing from the scorn of unbelievers — and no class is more 
intolerant than they — accounts for the attitude of a large 
number who talk much about "modern thought," or who 
have other such shibboleths constantly on their lips. 

This being the case, we are compelled to discount con- 
siderably the face value of the testimony which is supposed 
to be rendered against the Bible by big numbers. After 
doing so we shall probably find a comparatively small num- 
ber of persons who from one cause or other — a lack of 
Christian training, it may be, or the fact that they have 
never seen a complete exposition of Christian e\ddences — 
profess, if not opposition to the Bible, at least an inability 
to accept it as the depository of a divine revelation. 

Now, it is more than likely that some who belong to this 
class have really never read the Bible, or that they have 
read only parts of it, here and there, or that they have read 
it under the guidance of one of those microscopic experts, 
of the ''higher criticism," who are skilled in examining 
single words and phrases, but who are unable to see the 
wood for the trees. To any sincere mind thus circum- 
stanced we must beg leave to make the following sugges- 
tions: 

Read the Bible, both the Old and the New Testament, 
from beginning to end. You will notice that you are read- 
ing, not one book but many books, a whole literature, in 
fact, whose one subject is God in His dealings with the 
human race. Begun several thousand years ago, it has 
received additions at intervals according as God has deigned 
to reveal Himself to His chosen people. Now, notwith- 
standing the multiplicity of its parts and the length of 
time it took to compose them, you will discover, on the one 
hand, a remarkable unity, and on the other, a remarkable 
growth of ideas. You will see the light of truth increasing 
from the dawn to the perfect day. You will see evidence 
of prophecy fulfilled. Finally, you will see salvation 
brought to the Gentiles and the light of truth diffused 
throughout the world by the coming of Him who is the 
Way, the Truth, and the Life. 

One of the fruits, it may be hoped, of so comprehensive 



24 Bible, The, and Modern Thought 

a view of the subject will be an answer supplied to a very 
important question ; to wit, How are we to account for the 
extraordinary place in history of the Jewish race? How 
account for its sublime conception of the Deity, and for the 
purity and holiness of its public worship, amidst the idola- 
tries and impurities of all the surrounding nations? How 
for its monuments, its customs, its laws? How shall we 
account for the very preservation of a race of so unique a 
character, and one that never rose to empire, for well-nigh 
two thousand years, amidst circumstances constantly tend- 
ing to its destruction ? Given the Jewish race, we look for 
its complement in a literature that shall interpret it as a 
fact in the world's history. And if such a literature be 
forthcoming, who will be surprised to find it abounding in 
the marvelous? 

And yet a mere reading of the Bible will not suffice. The 
Bible can not be read in any and every frame of mind. To 
read it in a fault-finding temper would be fatal to an un- 
derstanding of its meaning and spirit. Yet we are not 
counseling that it be read with a wish to believe, or with 
a strained effort to get into sympathy with its contents. 
We might in that case seem to be advising a species of auto- 
suggestion, against which our very knowing generation is 
so much on its guard. All that we ask is that you bring 
to the reading of the Bible as much open-mindedness as you 
would bring to the reading of any other body of literature, 
sacred or profane. We ask you, not to believe, but to re- 
gard as conceivable, not only that there is an infinite and 
eternal God, or that He is able to reveal His mind and will 
to those whom He has created, but also that He might on 
occasions manifest His presence and His power by extraor- 
dinary events. The evidence that there is such a God and 
that He has so manifested Himself to mankind will develop 
itself in your mind as you proceed through the volume. 

We feel confident that no skeptic can read the sacred 
writings from beginning to end in the unbiased temper we 
have been describing without feeling his whole attitude of 
mind undergoing a change. This will be especially the 
case when he arrives at the narrative of the Saviour's life 
as given in the Gospels, a life which, when viewed both in 
its own wonderful details and in its relation to types and 
prophecies, indeed, to the whole of Jewish history, proves 
that there has been a veritable opening of the heavens, 



Bible, The, and Modern Thought 25 

and that God has in a most remarkable and touching way- 
revealed Himself to mankind in the earthly career of His 
eternal and only-begotten Son. 

But perhaps you are under the spell of the ** scientific" 
hubbub which has tended of late years to trouble some 
Christian minds. You have perhaps heard the note of tri- 
umph sounded by anti- Christian scientists, and sounded 
still louder by many of their unscientific followers. But 
a slight review of the results of scientific research will 
probably convince you that in this scientific jubilation there 
has been much noise but little wool. 

The experimental sciences, to begin with, have been in- 
voked against the supernatural element in Holy Writ; 
especially against miraculous interference with what are 
called nature's laws. Miracles are impossible, we are told, 
because they are an interference with the constancy and 
uniformity of natural laws. Now, in the first place, it must 
be remembered that we stand in no need of modern science 
to be informed that nature behaves in certain uniform 
ways, e.g., that fire burns and that water quenches fire. 
Common observation has told us as much since the days of 
Adam. Science has but extended and methodized common 
observation. Nature's uniformity is no more certain to- 
day than it was thousands of years ago. But apart from 
that matter, neither science nor common observation can go 
a step further than to declare that it is of the nature of 
water, or of fire, or of any other natural agent to behave 
in a certain way, and that they have as a matter of fact 
so behaved. But to declare that under no circumstances 
can they behave otherwise is quite beyond their province. 

There is no warrant in science, therefore, for saying 
there can be no interference with nature's laws. Ordi- 
nary experience proves that such interference is possible. 
A stone, in obedience to the law of gravitation, falls earth- 
ward, but its fall may be arrested by a human hand. 
Why can not God, the Author of nature, arrest its fall as 
well? Science would not be disproved by interference in 
either case. Science can only tell us what things do in 
accordance with their natures, not what they will do as a 
matter of fact. The miracles of the Bible are therefore 
not proved impossible by science. 

Ah, but there is evolution in my way, you will remind 
me. How can I ever get beyond that? 



26 Bible, The, and Modern Thought 

Why is evolution such an obstacle in your way? If you 
could once step out of your an ti- Christian environment 
evolution would appear in a somewhat new light. You 
would find that among sincere Christians, even among 
Catholics, there are those who are convinced that within 
certain limits there has been an evolution of species among 
animals and plants. Opinions favoring a limited evolution 
of species may be traced back as far as certain of the 
Fathers (the great Christian authorities of the early cen- 
turies), notably St. Augustine, of the fifth century. You 
probably mean by evolution just one type of evolutionary 
theory, the pure Darwinian, which held sway for a few 
decades, but which, as professional scientists well know, has 
since been shoved more than half-way off its throne.^ 

Indeed, the fortunes of pure Darwinism furnish a strik- 
ing illustration of what the cooler heads among Catholic 
theologians have been predicting for many a day. Let 
scientific theorizing run its course, they have told us, and 
if it be opposed to Christian truth it will eventually show 
a suicidal tendency. Among leading evolutionists natural 
selection is no longer in the ascendant. 

It was always a thorn in Darwin's side that certain de- 
vout Darwinians would not foUow their leader the whole 
length of the theory of Natural Selection. Even the joint 
author and propounder, with Darwin, of the theory of 
natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, steadily held to 
the spiritual nature and the divine origin of the human 
soul; and after more than a half century's study of the 
subject he published a work, *'The World of Life," in 
which more emphatically than ever he averred that phe- 
nomena which he described and of which he had made a 
very special study proved the existence of "a creative 
Power/' *^a directive Mind,** '*an ultimate Purpose/* 
which is no other than *Uhe development of Man/' a be- 
ing who was intended to interpret the rest of nature and 
deduce from its phenomena the existence of ''a supreme 
and over-ruling Mind as their necessary cause." Here is 
evolution, after its long excursion in the wilds, meeting 
Christianity at the crossroads and hailing it as a friend. 

There seems to be nothing inconsistent with Christian 
teaching in holding that the present countless species of 

iSee "Evolution," page 207. 



Bible, The, and Modern Thought 27 

animals and plants have been evolved from a smaller num- 
ber of primitive species. And even though any such evolu- 
tion of species should have required immensely long periods 
of time to elapse before the appearance of man on the 
earth, there can be little or no difficulty in granting their 
existence; for although the whole material universe was 
made in "six days," as the Bible narrates, there is no cer- 
tain indication in the Bible of the length of each of the six 
days. For all we know to the contrary it may have been 
an exceedingly long period. 

In pursuance of the evolutionary idea as applied to man, 
the most strenuous endeavors have been made to discover 
the ''missing link," that is to say, any fossil remains of an 
extinct species intermediate between man and the ape. 
As such connecting species would, in Darwin's view, be 
exceedingly numerous, it is a wonder that we have not been 
stumbling against them in every morning's walk in the 
country. As it is, an occasional reputed discovery has 
created a sensation for a brief period but eventually has 
been shelved, once and for all, as a scientific myth.^ 

As to the more extreme types of evolutionary theory — 
the Haeckelian, for instance, which is an extension of Dar- 
win's ideas to the whole range of being — ^we shall have to 
refer you to the articles entitled respectively ''Evolution" 
and "Haeckel," remarking, however, that you will search 
in vain in the books of Haeckel and his compeers for any- 
thing that even pretends to be a demonstration of any sin- 
gle proposition that is distinctive of their system. 

As regards the objections so frequently urged in the 
name of astronomical science, we shall have a word to say 
about them in the article entitled "Bible and Science." 

No less futile are the objections based on historical and 
archeological science and on the "higher criticism." The 
attacks made upon Christianity from this quarter are prob- 
ably more persistent and relentless than any others. And 
yet what has been accomplished by our assailants? What 
fact or what principle has been evolved which contradicts 
any essential or quasi-essential Christian idea? For, not 
every idea that has gained currency among Christians can 
be regarded as an essential part of Christian doctrine. 
Propositions that have been defined by competent author- 

iSee "Apes and Men" and "Human Race, The. — How Old Is it?" 



28 Bible, The, and Modern Thought 

ity, and those all but certain, or morally certain, facts or 
truths which have been generally held as such by Chris- 
tians; as, for instance, the Mosaic authorship of the Pen- 
tateuch, these are matters about which we should feel con- 
cerned if even prima facie evidence against them, or any- 
thing resembling it, were supplied by honest criticism; 
but such is not the case. 

The false anti- Christian hypotheses so freely adopted by 
the ''higher critics" have actually retarded the progress 
of true criticism. Here, as everywhere else, hunting on 
the wrong trail has been a sheer loss of time. It is refresh- 
ing to hear a leading specialist in matters archeological, 
suclsTas Professor Sayce of Oxford, taking to task the more 
extravagant of the ''higher critics." 

' ' The arrogancy of tone, ' ' he remarks, ' ' adopted at times 
by the 'higher criticism' has been productive of nothing 
but mischief; it has aroused distrust even of its most cer- 
tain results, and has betrayed the critic into a dogmatism 
as unwarrantable as it is unscientific. Baseless assumptions 
have been placed on a level with ascertained facts, hasty 
conclusions have been put forward as principles of science, 
and we have been called upon to accept the prepossessions 
and fancies of the individual critic as the revelation of a 
new gospel." — The ^^ Higher Criticism" and the Verdict of 
the Monuments, p. 5. 

Not unf requently, whilst the ' ' higher critic ' ' is weaving 
his fabric of mixed fact and hypothesis, the spade of the 
explorer among the ruins of some ancient city turns up an 
object bearing an inscription which obliges the critic to 
undo his work to the last thread. Speaking of the effect of 
archeological discovery on the conclusions of the "higher 
criticism," the author quoted above remarks: 

"The assumptions and preconceptions with which the 
'higher criticism* started, and upon which so many of its 
conclusions are built, have been swept away either wholly 
or in part, and in place of the skepticism it engendered 
there is now a danger lest the oriental archeologist should 
adopt too excessive a credulity. The revelations of the 
past which have been made to him of late years have in- 
clined him to believe that there is nothing impossible in 
history any more than there is in science, and that he is 
called upon to believe rather than to doubt." — Op. cit., 
p. 23. 



Bible ''Myths'' 29 

So that there are two sides to the picture, one of which 
you had hardly supposed to be in existence. 

We have been dealing almost exclusively with modem 
science, because it is chiefly science — or what is taken for 
science — that is flaunted so contemptuously in the face of 
religion. As to the "aspirations" of the modern world, these 
are likely to prove its bane. The inflated human spirit 
aspires to being the self -sufficing lord of the earth and the 
supreme arbiter of human destiny, with no need of God or 
of heaven, or of grace or of salvation. But this is not the 
first time that the aspirations of created beings have soared 
too high. *'I will ascend above the height of the clouds, 
I will be like the Most High, ' ' was the aspiration of Luci- 
fer. **We shall be as gods, knowing good and evil," was 
the aspiration of our first parents. And who can doubt 
that the same Nemesis will overtake the third and last class 
of aspirants as overtook the first and the second ? 

The proud aspirations of the human spirit will ever have 
been the worst obstacle both to the happiness and to the 
truest progress of the race. And why so? Because — and 
here we shall be using language familiar to modern thought 
— such aspirations are supremely unscientific. How so? 
Simply by not recognizing that the true basis of all rational 
aspiration lies in a fact ; and that fact is that we are created 
beings, and consequently must submit to be taught and 
ruled by the Creator. 

No wonder that your general point of view is not the 
same as that of the writers of Holy Writ. 



BIBLE "MYTHS" 

Objection. — ^The Bible contains many stories 
that remind us forcibly of the myths of early 
pagan history. How can we be expected to be- 
lieve the story of the Serpent tempting Eve — 
that of the Flood, with its fabulous quantity of 
water — that of Noe collecting the countless spe- 
cies of animals ? — And then, is not God frequent- 
ly represented in a strangely human way — when, 
for instance, He is described as taking slime and 
forming it into a human body, or as shaping 



30 Bible ''Myths" 

Adam's rib into a woman — or when He is said 
to be moved to wrath, or to repent of His crea- 
tion of man? 

The Answer. — In reading many of the interesting and 
remarkable things narrated in the Book of Genesis we must 
not be surprised if the events connected with the founda- 
tion of a universe and of human society are not of the com- 
monplace type that make up our daily history. Supposing 
a creation and a revelation, what wonder if the hand of 
God should in some sense be visible in His creation? What 
wonder if a mingling of the human and the divine should 
be a matter of frequent occurrence? 

An impartial and broadminded examination of the Bible 
stories in question will show that, so far from being a 
counterpart of pagan mythology, they stand out in bold 
relief from the whole mass of ancient legendary lore, and 
exliibit a dignity and sobriety of content which is conspicu- 
ously wanting in the fabulous history of pagan origins. 

To pass in review all the alleged mythical stories of the 
Bible would be to write a commentary far outrunning the 
limits of these brief articles. We shall have to content our- 
selves with a specimen or two. From these the reader will 
get an idea of the light in which ive read the Bible. 

The Serpent Tempting Eve 

An evident fable, says the skeptic ; and he dismisses the 
subject with a shrug of his shoulder. 

Nevertheless it is not so evidently a fable. Animals do 
not speak, but beings of the purely spiritual order, such as 
the angels, may use the animal nature, or material sub- 
stance of any kind, for their purposes. But perhaps our 
objector is a materialist and does not believe in spiritual 
natures. The angels are to him only another mythical fea- 
ture of the Bible narrative. To prove the existence of 
spiritual beings does not fall within the scope of the pres- 
ent article;^ but whilst referring our skeptical friend to 
other parts of this work, we can not refrain from asking him 
why he denies the existence of spiritual beings. Is it not to 
be feared that his opposition to the spiritual is resolvable 
into a mere feeling ^ or impression, based upon a crude, un- 
reasoned notion that anything imperceptible to the senses 

iSee "Mind and Matter," "Soul," "Materialism." 



Bible ''Myths'' 31 

— anything that has not three dimensions — has no reality- 
whatever, is simply nothing? But we must assume here 
the existence of spirits and show how, on this assumption, 
the narrative we are considering acquires a dignity and a 
degree of credibility which remove it far from the absurd 
or the fabulous. 

The evil one made use of the serpent as an instrument of 
temptation. But why make use of an animal of any kind 1 
Because an animal, and especially the serpent, was the best 
suited to his purpose. Consider the circumstances. The 
devil, who is a spiritual being, plans the ruin of man, who 
is partly of a spiritual, partly of a corporeal nature. The 
devil seldom tempts by direct suggestion, but usually 
through our natural concupiscence. But in the state of 
primitive innocence concupiscence, by God's special favor, 
was absent. There was nothing in man's nature in sym- 
pathy with moral evil. Hence the only available instru- 
ment within the devil's reach was the purely animal na- 
ture, with which man has so much in common. He chose 
the serpent, at that time gracious of form and known to be 
**more subtle [wise] than any of the beasts of the earth.'' 
We may add that he selected as the direct object of his 
temptation the woman rather than the man, as the weaker 
of the two. 

Eve was doubtless surprised to find the serpent, wise 
though he was, using human speech; but she knew there 
were superior beings in the universe who might speak 
through the serpent ; and if she was aware that she stood in 
the presence of such a being the fact easily explains the 
deference she showed the serpent's judgment during the 
temptation. As sensible appetite was then under the con- 
trol of reason and gave no handle to temptation, the devil 
assailed her through reason itself. He plied her with the 
why and the wherefore of God's commands. 

''Why hath God commanded you that you should not 
eat of every tree of paradise ? . . . God doth know that in 
what day soever you shall eat thereof your eyes shall be 
opened : and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. ' ' 

Pride was awakened, as it had been among the angels. 
Eve, the joint ruler with Adam of God's creation, was al- 
ready high in the scale of being, but now she would rise 
higher; she would be a goddess; she would know how to 
distinguish good from evil, and thus be the arbitress of her 



32 Bible ''Myths'' 

own destiny. It was only now that sensible appetite was 
awakened : ' * And the woman saw that the tree was good to 
eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold." She 
plucked the fruit, ate of it, and afterward used the devil's 
arguments to induce her partner to do the same — adding, 
no doubt, an appeal to his affection. 

Such is the story of man 's fall from grace — a story whose 
details are so true to nature, so intrinsically probable, and 
withal so replete with dignity. And yet it is a story that 
has been brushed aside as a piece of absurd fiction. 

The Flood 

No less vigorously has the biblical account of the Flood 
been assailed ; and yet, as regards the fact as distinguished 
from the circumstances, the Bible account has been con- 
firmed by the traditions of so many ancient peoples that 
even the most skeptical must admit its truth. This is one 
of the many instances in which an independent study of 
antiquity has corroborated the sacred text. 

"The historicity of the biblical Flood account is confirmed by the 
tradition existing in all places as to the occurrence of a similar 
catastrophe. F. von Schwarz . . . enumerates sixty-three such 
Flood stories which are in his opinion independent of the biblical 
accoimt. R. Andr6e discusses eighty-eight different Flood stories 
and considers sixty-two of them as independent of the Chaldee and 
Hebrew tradition. Moreover these stories extend through all the 
races of the earth excepting the African; these are excepted, not be- 
cause it is certain that they do not possess any Flood traditions, but 
because their traditions have not as yet been sufficiently investi- 
gated. Lenormant pronounces the Flood story as the most universal 
tradition in the history of primitive man, and Franz Delitzsch was 
of opinion that we might as well consider the history of Alexander 
the Great a myth as to call the Flood tradition a fable. It would 
indeed be a greater miracle than that of the Deluge itself if the 
various and different conditions surrounding the several nations 
of the earth had produced among them a tradition substantially 
identical. Opposite causes would have produced the same effect." — 
A. J. Maas, S.J., in the "Catholic Encyclopedia," vol. iv., p. 407. 

So much for the fact: — an extraordinary event, which 
impressed itself deeply upon the memory of mankind really 
took place, and the history of it the Bible professes to give 
in its details. It is these details that are principally at- 
tacked by the ** higher critics." 

It goes without saying that it is the supernatural element 



BiUe ''Myths'' 33 

of the history that bears the brunt of the attack. The 
Flood story savors too much of the miraculous to be ac- 
ceptable to the atheistic critic. The gathering together of 
the countless species of animals and the housing of them in 
the Ark — the feeding and tending of so vast a herd by 
eight persons — the submerging of immense continents to 
the height of the loftiest mountains, and the consequent 
emptying of half the seas — the preservation of fresh-water 
and salt-water fish in a mixture of brine and rain-water, 
which must have been fatal to both kinds — these and other 
circumstances are rejected by the ''higher critics" as fabu- 
lous, because apparently miraculous. 

Whether there is any need of invoking the miraculous, 
strictly so called, to explain the facts as narrated may be 
a question. God could have given Noe special assistance 
short of the miraculous to enable him to perform the task 
assigned him, and by a purely natural catastrophe, though 
on an extraordinary scale, could have accomplished without 
miracle the destruction of the human race. But still, if it 
be shown that any one of the disputed circumstances calls 
for a miracle, we, of course, shall not be staggered by the 
prospect of admitting one. We believe in the possibility 
of miracles, and would naturally look for them in a uni- 
versal deluge. In a destruction of an entire race we should 
expect an assertion of God's power and majesty of the 
most impressive kind. 

And yet we must add that even the most devout believer 
in miracles will place a limit to his acceptance of miracle 
stories in the concrete. ' ' Miracles are not to be multiplied 
without necessity" {i.e., necessity of interpretation), is a 
sound adaptation of a medieval formula. Working under 
the guidance of this principle, many of the most orthodox 
Christian scholars have endeavored with some success to 
reduce the limits of the miraculous in the case of the Flood. 

One question on which many others are thought to hinge 
is whether the Deluge covered the entire globe, or only a 
part of it. In the first place, it is well to remember that 
among the ancients the common conception of the earth 
was not that of a globe, but rather of a more or less flat 
surface, with a mysterious substructure of one kind or 
other, and with watery bounds whose extent was no less 
mysterious. Its vastness was not even dreamed of. No ex- 
pression in their literatures ever conveyed the idea of a 



34 Bible ''Myths'' 

globe 25,0(X) miles in circumference and covered by oceans 
and continents of enormous extent. But, great or small, 
the earth was seldom spoken of as a whole except by phi- 
losophers and astronomers. Words in ancient writings 
which we frequently render by ''the earth," or "the 
world, ' ' meant, at the most, the inhabited part of the earth, 
which in Noe's time could have been a small fraction of 
the whole. Frequently they meant only that part which 
was most familiar to the writer and his countrymen. 

It is conceivable, therefore, and even probable that when 
any such expression as "the earth," or even "the whole 
earth" is found in the history of the Flood its meaning is 
to be similarly restricted. It has been noted, moreover, 
that the Hebrew expression which has been translated ' ' the 
earth" may easily be rendered "the land," "the region." 
If this rendering be adopted the interpretation of the Del- 
uge history will be comparatively easy. 

Views in favor of a restriction of the geographical area 
of the Deluge have been held by many "orthodox" writers, 
and amongst them a large number of Catholics. We, for 
our part, should welcome any successful attempt at demon- 
strating that the Deluge was geographically not universal. 
Any such demonstration would obviate the necessity of our 
believing that God flooded the entire globe in order to de- 
stroy a race inhabiting only a small part of it ; and expres- 
sions denoting universality might be regarded as only rela- 
tively universal; that is to say, as relating to a particular 
region; and thus the defender of revelation would have 
a freer hand in dealing with its adversaries. 

Another question has been mooted which can hardly be 
a question for Christians who hearken to the voice of au- 
thority and tradition; namely, whether the Deluge was 
universal as regarded the human race. Were all men de- 
stroyed, or were only those destroyed who inhabited a cer- 
tain limited area to which alone the Bible history refers? 
The Biblical account, considered in itself and apart from 
authority and tradition, may possibly admit of an inter- 
pretation limiting the destruction of men to a part only of 
the entire race, but indirectly, that is to say, through the 
interpretation given it by the Fathers of the Church, it for- 
bids any such view. No Christian, therefore, who respects 
the authority of those great teachers of the early Church 
can safely permit himself to hold that any part of the 



Bihle ''Myths'' 35 

human race was saved from the deluge except Noe and his 
family, who had taken refuge in the Ark. 

It has been objected that the history of the race fur- 
nishes evidences that not all men are descended from Noe 's 
family, and that consequently some must be descended 
from a part of the race unaffected by the Flood. The sup- 
posed evidence lies in such facts as the following: Nations 
which certainly have sprung from Noe found in the places 
in which they first settled inhabitants who had occupied 
those places for a considerable time. Egyptian monuments 
of very remote antiquity exhibit the Negro just as we find 
him to-day; even at that early period he was completely 
differentiated from the Caucasian. Languages, too, have 
developed in a way that must have required a greater time 
than has elapsed since the Flood. The gist of all such 
arguments is that more time is needed to explain the de- 
velopment of races and languages than is allowed by any 
version of the Bible. 

This objection has been urged with some persistency, and 
yet it is based on a false assumption. We do not pretend 
to have established a fixed and certain system of biblical 
chronology. So that if it can be demonstrated from un- 
deniable facts that the development of races and languages 
required a longer time than is usually assigned, there is 
nothing in Christian hermeneutics forbidding the conces- 
sion of a longer interval between the Flood and the present 
day. 

Such, if we mistake not, is the general attitude of Cath- 
olic scholars toward history and science in their bearings 
on biblical questions. Obscurity and mystery hover over 
many parts of the sacred writings ; but where a clear and 
decided meaning is not otherwise discernible the well-bal- 
anced Catholic student avails himself of the services of his- 
tory or of science, whenever either can offer an interpreta- 
tion at once well based and well defended. 

Our position, then, is briefly this : We are ready, if need 
be, to accept even as miracles the wonderful events by 
which God visited His wrath upon a sinful race ; it is ra- 
tional and, in some sense, natural to suppose that at the 
close of one great act of the drama of human existence, and 
one that was marked by an all but universal catastrophe, 
the power of the Almighty should have been more than 
ordinarily manifest; but at the same time we are aware 



36 BiUe ''Myths'' 

that Christian, and even Catholic, scholarship points to an 
interpretation of the text which reduces the miraculous 
element to comparatively small dimensions. Only that part 
of the earth may have been submerged upon which human 
beings were living — God 's primary purpose being to destroy 
the human race. On this hypothesis such expressions as 
' ' all flesh, " ' ' all things wherein there is the breath of life, ' ' 
need not be taken in a strictly universal sense. They are 
neither more nor less universal than the expressions which 
have been rendered by ''the earth," which may have meant 
in reality only that ''region" of the earth inhabited by 
men. Whilst holding, then, that all human beings were 
destroyed by the Deluge, we need not hold that the entire 
globe was submerged: and whilst holding that all living 
things within reach of the Flood were destroyed, we can 
still believe that many species of animals (not including 
men, however), were not touched by the Flood. If this 
be the case Noe's task of collecting specimens of each 
species may have been a comparatively easy one. 

As to the anthropomorphism of the Bible, or its repre- 
sentation of God as acting in a human way, we know, on 
the one hand, from the Bible itself that God is purely 
spiritual and that He is infinite and unchangeable; and 
if, on the other hand. He is represented as acting in ways 
inconsistent with these attributes it is only because He 
wishes to accommodate Himself to our human limitations. 
"He knoweth our frame" and adapts His ways to ours. 
He is described as being moved to anger, or as being pleased 
with the sweet odor of a sacrifice, or as repenting of having 
created man. The deep impression produced upon men's 
minds by such modes of representing the Deity enables us 
to understand something of God's motive in permitting 
Himself to be so described. 

As regards apparitions of God vouchsafed to His ser- 
vants, although it was forbidden in the Old Testament to 
represent Him by any graven image, nevertheless He Him- 
self deigned to give man a sense of being brought nearer to 
his God by sensible forms which impressed upon men's 
minds the awful feeling that they were face to face with 
their Maker. ^Hien God is represented as fashioning earth 
into a human body it need not be supposed that an actual 
moulding of the clay by an apparently human hand might 
have been witnessed. At any rate, it is plain from the 



Bihle, The, and the People 37 

Scriptures that when God produces anything He does so by 
a simple act of His will, and that His willing of anything 
is from all eternity. Neither change nor motion is in Him, 
but only in things without. 



BIBLE, THE, AND THE PEOPLE 

An Accusation. — It is notoriously the settled 
policy of Rome to withhold the Bible from the 
people: witness the number of decrees on the 
subject in the history of the Papacy. Versions 
of the Bible in the language of the people have 
been an object of the Church's special aversion. 

The Answer. — As a general proposition it is untrue 
that the Church withholds, or desires to withhold, the Bible 
from the people. The Church has at times placed restric- 
tions, not precisely on Bible reading, but on the reading of 
certain versions of the Bible, and, even then, only when 
such restrictions were necessary as preventives of serious 
harm. 

The Bible is indeed a sacred thing, but the most sacred 
of things may be abused. And who will deny that the Bible 
has been abused in the hands of the unworthy? The pre- 
vention of such abuse is so rational that the opposition of 
Protestants to it would be quite unintelligible if we were 
not aware of the effect of early education in sealing up the 
mmd against all access of new ideas that seem to conflict 
with early impressions. ''Dare be open-minded" on the 
subject of the Bible, is the friendly admonition we would 
give to our Protestant readers. 

Now, in detail, what are the real facts of the case ? The 
first fact takes the shape of a letter. It may be found 
among the introductory pages of the modern reprints of 
the Douai (or Douay) Bible, which is in every good Cath- 
olic household. It is written by Pope Pius VI to Arch- 
bishop Martini of Florence in reference to the latter 's trans- 
lation of the Bible into Italian. The following is the text 
of the English translation of the part of the letter that 
particularly concerns us : 

"Beloved Son: Health and Apostolical Benediction. — At a time 
that a vast number of bad books which most grossly attack the 
Catholic religion are circulated even among the unlearned, to the 



38 Bible, The, and the People 

great destruction of souls, you judge exceedingly well that the faith- 
ful should be excited to the reading of the Holy Scriptures; for 
these are the most abundant sources which ought to be left open to 
every one, to draw from them purity of morals and of doctrine, to 
eradicate the errors which are widely disseminated in these corrupt 
times. This you have seasonably effected, as you declare, by publish- 
ing the sacred writings in the language of your country, suitable 
to every one's capacity; especially when you show and set forth that 
you have added explanatory notes, which being extracted from the 
holy Fathers, preclude every possible danger of abuse." (Dated 
April 1, 1778.) 

Here we see the precious treasure of God's word placed 
within the reach of all who have a knowledge of the lan- 
guage in which the version is printed, whilst at the same 
time precautions are taken against any abuse of it. The 
word of God is given in its entirety, but its interpretation 
is safeguarded by extracts from the Fathers, that is to say, 
from the great authorities of the early Christian ages. The 
version of the Bible praised by the Pontiff is in the Italian 
language ; but that was not by any means the first time that 
the sacred writings appeared in a modern tongue. 

Our second fact is that in nearly every modern language 
there have been numerous translations of the entire Bible. 
As these versions were either positively approved or ap- 
peared with the knowledge of the authorities, it is altogether 
impossible that the settled policy of the Church can have 
been to withhold the Bible from the people. To any one 
who knows the facts, or even a fraction of them, the ac- 
cusation must seem to be a calumny. Germany, the birth- 
place of the Reformation, is conspicuous for the number of 
editions of the whole Bible in the language of the people 
produced in Catholic times. Bibles in German were among 
the very first products of the printing-press. 

The art of printing, we may remark in passing, is an in- 
vention of Catholic days ; and printing-presses were at work 
more than half a century before Luther's revolt in 1517, 
sending forth to the world copies of the Bible in Luther's 
own language. Between 1466 and 1518 there appeared as 
many as fourteen editions of the complete Bihle in High 
German and five in Low German. This is a fact which no 
historian of to-day will deny, though it is probably never 
mentioned within the walls of the non-Catholic Sunday- 
school. In the light of this fact Luther's dramatic story 
about the joy and delight he felt at discovering at the age 



Bihle, The, and the People 39 

of twenty a complete Bible, of whicli he had hitherto seen 
only fragments in the homilies, must seem quite astonishing. 
If the story is true it is significant, not as pointing to the 
rarity of Catholic Bibles, but as throwing a light of its own 
upon the character of Luther's education. The truth is 
that in the schools which Luther attended as a boy the an- 
cient classics were the absorbing and almost exclusive sub- 
ject of study — this according to his own testimony — 
whereas in the more conservative schools and in those in 
which the traditional methods of the Church were followed 
the Bible was part of the regular curriculum. 

We have said nothing, though much might be said, about 
the numerous German versions of the whole or of parts of 
the Bible issued in manuscript before the invention of 
printing. It was the work of a lifetime to produce, and 
it required a little fortune to purchase, a manuscript of 
the entire Bible before the printing era had dawned; still 
the laborious work of producing was carried forward in the 
monasteries ; and the demand on the part of those who were 
able to purchase was large enough to occasion the produc- 
tion of an immense number of copies of the Scriptures, 
some of which are still extant. 

It is needless to say anything of the numerous editions 
of the Bible in Germany which have appeared in recent 
centuries. The AUioli edition, with its clear and copious 
exposition of the text, would alone be sufficient to dis- 
prove the assertion that versions of the Bible in th^ lan- 
guage of the people are the Church's special aversion. 

In the Italian language eleven printed editions of the 
whole Bible appeared before the end of the fifteenth cen- 
tury. Much the same story might be told about Spain and 
France. 

In England the people had the open Bible from the 
earliest centuries. Anglo-Saxon versions of Scripture are 
well known to scholars. Fragments of them are extant 
and may be read in modern reprints. When in the course 
of time the old language became unintelligible, the Bible 
was rendered into the more modern tongue. Even Cran- 
mer admits as much. ''When," he remarks, "the Saxon 
language waxed old and out of common usage, because folk 
should not lack the fruit of reading [the Scripture], was 
agaiQ translated into the newer language, whereof yet also 
many copies remain, and be daily found." Blessed Thomas 



40 Bible, The, and the People 

More, whose word carries as much weight with non- Cath- 
olics as with Catholics, tells us : " Myself have seen and can 
show you Bibles fair and old which have been known and 
seen by the bishop of the diocese, and left in laymen's 
hands and women's, to such as he knew for good and Cath- 
olic folk that used it with soberness and devotion. ' ' 

Even so stout a champion of Protestantism as John Foxe 
cannot refrain from adding his voice to the general chorus 
of testimony . * * If histories be well examined, ' ' he assures 
us, "we shall find both before the Conquest and after, as 
well before John Wickliffe was born as since, the whole 
body of the Scriptures by sundry men translated into this 
our country tongue." 

Strange, you will say, that such thorough-paced Anti- 
Romanists as Foxe and Cranmer should have let the cat 
out of the bag as they would seem to have done in the 
above passages : but the truth probably is that whilst they 
knew it would serve their immediate purpose to make the 
true statements we have quoted, they never suspected the 
controversial use to which their words would be put in a 
later age. 

Since 1582 English-speaking countries have had the New 
Testament, and since 1609 the Old Testament, translated 
into modern English idiom. The Douai, or Douay, Bible 
is a familiar object in Catholic households. 

In a word, the open Bible is a well-attested fact as re- 
gards the Catholics of the world, and our case is made out. 

"Not so," says a voice somewhere in the audience, "there 
may have been an English Catholic Bible, but it must have 
had few readers, as there was a positive ban put upon the 
reading of the Scriptures in the English tongue. ' ' 

Be this our answer: Never, either in England or else- 
where, has the Church banned a Bible because it was in 
the language of the people ; but it has forbidden the read- 
ing of certain versions of the Bible which perverted the 
meaning of Holy Writ. Could the Church of God have 
done less 1 Granted a Church with authority — and what is 
a Church without authority ? — was she to permit the Scrip- 
tures to appear with a falsified text? Whatever action 
the Church has ever taken with regard to English Bibles, 
it was entirely of a piece with its legislation from the be- 
ginning, whose object was to preserve from pollution the 
stream of divine revelation. To this legislation all Chris- 



Bible, The, and the People 41 

tian churches are indebted for their possession of a Chris- 
tian Bible of any kind. But let us glance at the facts of 
the case. 

The reader will hardly need to be informed that in the 
fourteenth century a priest named John Wycliffe was cited 
to appear before the ecclesiastical authorities to answer the 
charge of heresy. Wycliffe has been styled ''the morning 
star of the Reformation," in accordance with the Protes- 
tant fashion of claiming kinship with all those who have 
had difficulties with their ecclesiastical superiors regarding 
matters of faith. But Anti-Romanism, like misery, ac- 
quaints a man with strange bedfellows. Wycliffe was indeed, 
in many respects, the morning star of the Reformation, 
but there is no orthodox Protestant of the present day who 
would not be shocked by certain of his views, which are not 
even Christian. He died in apparent communion with the 
Church, but he had fairly launched what was known after 
his death as the Lollard heresy. 

The Lollards were fanatical revolutionists, equally dan- 
gerous to the Church and to society. It was against the 
Lollard perversions of Scripture that the Church directed 
her anathemas. In 1408 a convocation held at Oxford for- 
bade any unauthorized person to translate the Scriptures 
— and who will say that such prohibitions are not within 
the right of a Church tracing its descent to the apostles, 
the greatest of whom, St. Peter (2 Epist. iii. 16), warns 
solemnly against wresting the Scriptures from their true 
meaning, whether by mistranslation or by any other pro- 
cess? The Convocation forbade, in the second place, any 
one to read without approbation any version of Scripture 
made either during or after Wy cliff e's lifetime; and Wy- 
cliffe had died twenty-four years before. As Blessed 
Thomas More remarks, we "hope, dear reader, you see in 
this law nothing unreasonable, since it neither forbids good 
translations to be read that were already made of old be- 
fore Wycliffe's time, nor condemns his because it was new, 
but because it was 'naught' [i.e., bad, perverse].*' 

How then, it may be asked, after so wide a diffusion of 
the Scriptures in the vernacular languages, could the no- 
tion ever have arisen that the Church would fain keep the 
Bible from the people? We shall have to let our readers 
puzzle over it. 

But our opponents have one more shaft in their quiver. 



42 Bible, The, and the People 

It must be conceded that Catholics are anything but a 
Bible-reading body. Bibles are multiplied, but Bible-read- 
ers are not. 

In answer to this reproach we would remark, in the first 
place, that in this matter it is easy to exaggerate the con- 
trast between Catholics and Protestants. There is a vast 
deal more reading of the Scriptures among Catholics than 
is suspected outside the Church. Priests, to begin with, 
are obliged daily to recite an office in which there is always 
a portion of the sacred text from the New or the Old Tes- 
tament. Many priests have devoted their lives to a study 
of the sacred writings. Besides the priests there are hun- 
dreds of thousands following the way of the counsels (and 
these have scarcely any counterpart in Protestantism) ; 
to wit, the members of the Religious Orders, who meditate 
daily on the life of our Blessed Saviour as narrated in the 
Gospels. The public reading of Scripture is also a com- 
mon practice in houses of Religious. For the faithful at 
large passages from the Gospels and Epistles are selected 
to be read from the pulpit. Children are taught their 
Bible history, which is sometimes worded from the text of 
the Bible itself. In some of our Sunday-schools the older 
pupils receive special instruction in the Bible. Any one 
who knows the run of Catholic publications must be ac- 
quainted with a number of small annotated editions of the 
Gospels, which are issued to meet the demand for Bible 
knowledge among Catholics. 

A good deal of this will be a surprise to our non-Catholic 
friends ; but this is only a sample of what they have yet to 
learn about their Catholic neighbors. And besides all this, 
it is a fact of no small importance that whilst the reading 
of the Bible has undoubtedly been on the increase among 
Catholics, it has very notahly decreased among other Chris- 
tian denominations. 

But significant as these facts certainly are as showing 
how much the Scriptures have been held in reverence by 
Catholics, we confess we do not by any means stake our 
case — nor should we, even if the facts were double or treble 
their present volume — on the amount of Bible-reading 
which may be placed to the credit of Catholics. If Bible 
readers were even fewer than they are, we should not be 
a bit concerned, if we could feel any assurance that they 
were growing in appreciation of what is to them of much 



Bible, The, cmd the People 43 

more importance than even Bible reading. If, for instance, 
they were daily learning to appreciate more and more the 
need and the ef&cacy of divine grace, especially as re- 
ceived through the sacraments; if they were conceiving 
daily a greater sorrow and detestation for sin, which they 
know is a condition for receiving pardon in the sacrament 
of Penance ; if in greater number and with growing fervor 
they were dedicating their lives to the service of their 
neighbor, for the sake of Him who regards what is done 
to the least of His brethren as done to Himself — and all 
these are known to be distinctive Catholic traits — then we 
should be reconciled to their comparative neglect of Scrip- 
ture reading. 

After all, it is the general point of view of the two re- 
ligions respectively that makes the greater part of the dif- 
ference between Catholics and Protestants in this matter. 
Given a religion that takes its stand solely on the Bible, 
there is at once an antecedent likelihood that a sort of 
omnipresence of the Bible will be a distinguishing feature 
of that religion. But given a religion which holds that 
Christ established a living authority, whose teachings are 
by a special providence preserved from error, in whose 
custodj^ tbe sacred writings are placed, and from whose 
first commissioned teachers a considerable part of those 
writing have emanated (we mean, of course, those form- 
ing the New Testament), at once the Bible ceases to be the 
be-all and end-all of a man's religion. It takes its place 
beside another great oracle of divine wisdom, in which is 
heard the living voice of apostolic authority. 

Before drawing this article to a close we would add that 
there is another important reason why the Bible, at least 
the whole Bible, is not so universally or so indiscriminately 
read by Catholics. There are passages in the Old Testa- 
ment which should never be placed under the eyes of the 
young or the frivolous, in whose case a morbid curiosity 
might easily turn the sacred text into an instrument of 
harm. The use to which the Bible has frequently been 
put by both of the classes mentioned is only too well known. 

And now, finally, we would ask our Protestant friends, 
what do they fancy could have been the Church's motive 
for its supposed policy of depriving the people of the 
word of God. We have seen that as a matter of fact she 
did not deprive them of that treasure, as the Bible has been 



44 Bible, The, and Science 

rendered into all the vernacular tongues in every age of 
the Church's history. But had she adopted a different 
policy what could she have feared or hoped for by so do- 
ing? Were the contents of Scripture a secret of which 
none but a few possessed a knowledge? Or were they a 
secret on which depended her power or influence or the 
personal advantage of her rulers ? The very notion of such 
secrecy is too absurd to be entertained for a moment. The 
Bible was as open as could be in all the languages known 
to scholars (or clerks, as they were called in those days) 
among the laity and the clergy. And yet the clerks were 
the very class that could trouble the peace of the Church 
most. They were the reading and thinking class, and in- 
dependence of judgment would naturally assert itself in 
their ranks more than elsewhere. 

As for a reading public in anything like the modem 
sense, it simply did not exist. And yet, as we have seen, 
even for the comparative few who could read, or had leisure 
to read, the Church provided the Scriptures in the common 
tongue. In giving the Scriptures to all classes the Church 
was not unmindful of the admonition of the Apostle that 
the sacred writings contained many things difficult to be 
understood and things which the unlearned and the un- 
stable wrested to their own destruction; for, inculcating 
as she did obedience to the Church as the divinely ap- 
pointed interpreter of the Scriptures, she reduced the 
danger of a reckless and independent interpretation to the 
minimum. The non-Catholic reader of the Bible has no 
such safeguard; and hence Catholics might justly charge 
the Protestant churches with placing the Bible in the 
hands of the unlearned and the unstable without furnish- 
ing any safeguard against the vagaries of human interpre- 
tation. 



BIBLE, THE, AND SCIENCE 

Objections. — According to the Bible the world 
was made in six days, whereas geology proves 
that enormous periods of time were required to 
bring the earth to its present condition. The 
earth, which astronomy has shown to be only a 
satellite of the sun, is represented by the Bible 



Bible, The, and Science 45 

as having been created before the sun; and the 
heavenly bodies, generally, are described as 
though they were lamps himg in the heavens to 
light the earth. 

The Answer. — The objection represents the state of 
mind of very many who get their ideas on these and kin- 
dred subjects from popular lecture-courses and seldom or 
never consult a reliable authority. Serious-minded men, 
distinguished in the world of science, have pondered the 
first chapters of Genesis and have not come to the conclu- 
sion that the Bible and geology are at variance; nay, not 
a few of them have seen a substantial agreement between 
the Mosaic order of creation and the sequence of events 
discovered by the geologist. Some have even marveled at 
the points of identity between the testimony of the Book 
and the testimony of the rocks. 

In what sense was the world made in six days? Were 
the days of the same duration as ours? The word used in 
the original Hebrew, yom, means day ; but as the Hebrews 
had no word to express * ' epoch, " ' * era, ' ' and the like, the 
word yom might be used for that purpose. That the word 
was rather elastic in usage is proved by the very passages 
under discussion. In one place it means daytime as dis- 
tinguished from night-time (i. 5), and elsewhere in the 
same verse darkness and the succeeding light as constitut- 
ing one day ; whilst in ii. 4, 5 it means the entire period of 
creative activity. There is no difficulty, then, in taking the 
expression to mean a period or epoch. But if it can be 
taken in that sense the objection falls to the ground, be- 
cause believers in the Bible need not take it as meaning a 
day of twenty-four hours' duration. 

As a matter of fact, the term has been taken in the sense 
of an epoch by a respectable body of Catholic exegetists 
and theologians. Their interpretation is based, first, on 
the indefinite character of the word, second, on the facts 
narrated in the account of the work of the first three days, 
and finally on the principle that the Christian interpreter 
of Scripture may in the case of obscure passages invoke the 
aid of the natural sciences no less than that of philology 
and general history. 

During the first three days of creation the alternation of 
day and night was not caused by the rising and setting of 



46 Bible, The, and Science 

the sun, because it was not till the fourth day that the sun 
was made to shed its light upon the earth. Hence those 
three days were not determined as to length, as our days 
are, by the apparent revolution of the sun. They were de- 
termined as days by the recurrence of light after darkness, 
but there is no reason compelling us to believe that their 
length was the equivalent of our twenty-four hours. There 
is much reason for thinking they were long periods of time. 
Certainly the events of the first three days were so stupen- 
dous in the aggregate that if they were dependent on the 
operation of natural laws they would necessarily require the 
lapse of long periods of time. And in the bringing about 
of such events, as, for instance, the emergence of continents 
from the deep, is it not more probable that God left such 
changes to the working of natural laws created by Himself 
than that He intervened by a direct exercise of His power 1 

This is enough for our purpose: the narrative of the 
sacred writer has its mysteries, but it can not be proved 
to contain any falsity. 

As to the account of the origin of the heavenly bodies, 
which the objector holds up as a sample of the mythical 
in the Bible, we have this to say: There are always two 
ways of telling a story ; Moses has his way of telling of the 
origin of sun, moon, and stars, and science has a way of its 
own, though it must be said that in this particular case 
science tells its story in faltering accents, as not being at 
all sure of its authenticity. 

Moses tells us distinctly that God made **two great 
lights, ' ' the one to rule the day, the other to rule the night, 
as also the stars, and that *'He set them in the firmament 
of heaven to shine upon the earth." Now, here God is 
represented either as having created the heavenly bodies, 
there and then, or as having made them, after they were 
created, luminaries in respect to the earth, i.e., by making 
their light reach the earth. In neither case does the nar- 
rative fall under the ban of astronomical science. Suppos- 
ing that the heavenly bodies were at that moment created, 
and therefore were created after the earth, does astronomy 
say anything to the contrary? It is able, doubtless, to tell 
us something of the earth in its present relations to the sun 
and the moon ; but has it yet demonstrated in what precise 
order sun, earth, and moon came into being? The nebular 
hypothesis, according to which the earth emanated from 



Bible, TJie, and Science 47 

the sun when both were in a gaseous state, is, after all, only 
a hypothesis. 

But there is no absolute necessity of supposing that when 
God is said to have ''made two great lights" He is repre- 
sented as there and then creating two heavenly bodies. 
He may have already created sun and moon, but now made 
them into lights in respect to the earth, i.e., made their ra- 
diance for the first time reach the earth, possibly by the 
removal of the dense mists that may have covered the earth. 

It must be remembered that although the earth is, physi- 
cally, an insignificant part of the universe and a satellite 
of a greater body, it may nevertheless be the moral center 
of the whole, and the part that dominated all others in the 
designs of the Creator. The rest of creation may well have 
been planned and ordered with a view to its ministering 
to the planet that was to be the habitat of man and the 
scene of God's great mercies to the human kind. As Moses 
apparently wrote from this point of view his narrative calls 
for an interpreter who realizes this circumstance, but 
whose mind is none the less open to the teachings of science 
on the subject. Science, however, has nothing to say that 
is certain and reliable. 

We have said that many scientists have found substantial 
agreement between the biblical account of creation and 
the geological record. Among others our distinguished 
American geologist. Professor Dana, following the lead of 
the French scientist, Guyot, has exhibited in detail some 
most striking points of agreement in the two records. Hav- 
ing first drawn up a table showing the ''stages of progress" 
in the history of the globe, he compares it with a tabulated 
analysis of the work of the six days, and finds that "the 
order of events in the Scripture cosmogony corresponds 
essentially" with the order assigned them by physical 
science. 

He remarks, furthermore, that the Scripture narrative, 
^Hf true, is of divine origin' ' (italics Dana's). "For no 
human mind was witness of the events ; and no such mind 
in the early age of the world, unless gifted with super- 
human intelligence, could have contrived such a scheme; 
. . . and none could have reached to the depths of phi- 
losophy exhibited in the whole plan." 

But the superior wisdom displayed by the biblical ac- 
count of creation is of a piece with the superior knowledge, 



48 Bible, The, and Tradition 

the clearness of detail, and the sobriety and saneness of the 
entire Book of Genesis as compared with the primitive tra- 
ditions of the Gentiles, whose early legends are character- 
ized by the opposite qualities, especially by a grotesqueness 
which is almost the earmark of early legendary lore. 

BIBLE, THE, AND TRADITION 

Protestant View. — The Bible alone is the 
Christian's rule of faith. 

Catholic Teaching. — The Bible, though it is the word 
of God, is not the Christian's sole rule of faith. Ultimate 
guidance in matters of faith must be sought in the au- 
thority of a divinely established Church, which, according 
to the Apostle of the Gentiles, is the ''pillar and ground 
of truth" (1 Tim. iii. 15). The Bible and the traditional 
teachings of the Church — or tradition — may indeed be re- 
garded as the twofold basis of the Christian religion ; but 
the Church, which is the interpreter of divine revelation 
and to which the promise was given that the Paraclete, ' ' the 
Spirit of truth," would abide with it forever (John xiv, 
16, 17), furnishes by its teachings the ultimate criterion of 
a Christian's faith. 

With any of our separated brethren who may happen to 
light upon these pages we must plead, here as elsewhere, 
for a little open-mindedness. We must remind them that 
there has been a tradition of opinion among Protestants on 
certain subjects; miracles, for instance, private judgment, 
the Bible, which even the cleverest Protestant minds have 
found it difficult — nay, impossible — to place upon a basis 
either of fact or of principle. Ask any Protestant why he 
thinks, as most Protestants do, that miracles ceased with 
the deaths of the apostles — he has no answer. Ask him to 
prove that the Bible is the only rule of faith — he is equally 
helpless. Can he prove it from the Bible itself? Surely 
not. There is no statement, explicit or implied, to that 
effect in the pages of Holy Writ. And yet the Bible is his 
final criterion of truth. Does it not seem as though the 
Protestant accepted this principle without inquiring into its 
validity, or without asking himself whether, after all, it is 
anything more than a Protestant tradition dating from 
the stormy period when those who revolted against the 



Bible, The, and Tradition 49 

authority of the Church were forced to do so under cover 
of the Bible? 

Moreover, there are Protestant prejudices against certain 
Catholic ideas which have the effect of shutting out all in- 
quiry into their meaning. Catholic tradition as conceived 
by the Protestant mind hardly rises above the level of the 
loose, haphazard sort of tradition that weighs so little with 
the serious historian. Tradition of that description is not 
of the kind to which Catholics appeal. Tradition as con- 
ceived by the Catholic is a divinely guarded continuity of 
teaching, raised above the accidents of time by reason of 
the ever-living teaching authority of the Church, which in 
virtue of the divine promises can never fail in its mission. 
The fact of such continuity of teaching we have sufficiently 
descanted upon in other parts of this volume. Our pres- 
ent task is to show by proofs more or less direct that the 
Bible can not be the sole and self-sufficing rule of faith. 

A few facts bearing on the origin of one part of the 
Bible will make this abundantly clear. *'The Bible, the 
whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, " is a familiar Prot- 
estant formula. Now one considerable part of the Bible 
is the New Testament. Whence came the books of the New 
Testament? Did they not emanate from the apostles and 
their immediate disciples? If so, they were brought into 
being by the Church, of course, under God's direction and 
inspiration. They were an expression of the Church's 
mind. Their only guarantee of authority was derived from 
their connection with the Church. 

When the Holy Ghost wished to make use of human in- 
struments for the committing to writing of certain facts 
and truths belonging to the new revelation He chose them 
from among the accredited teachers of the Church. It was 
because those writers were so accredited that their writings 
were accepted as oracles of revelation. The whole of the 
New Testament is, therefore, the immediate production 
of the Church. Though inspired by God, its inspiration is 
vouched for through the Church. So far, then, from being 
independent of the Church, the writings of the New Testa- 
ment are no less dependent on the Church than any other 
epistle or book is dependent on its writer ; dependent, first, 
for its existence and afterward for its interpretation. No 
part of the New Testament can, therefore, be a rule of faith 
except in so far as the Church guarantees its interpretation. 



50 Bible, The, and Tradition 

Now, this being the case, and considering the vital con- 
nection between the Old and the New Testament, the same 
power of interpretation must extend to both parts of Holy- 
Writ. The New Testament contains the fulfilment of the 
types and prophecies of the Old. The meaning of the Old 
is more precisely determined by the meaning of the New. 
Interpreting the one implies the power to interpret the 
other. The Church, therefore, which is the immediate au- 
thor, and consequently interpreter, of the New Testament, 
must be equally the interpreter of the Old. Nor could it 
be otherwise in the case of a Church which was constituted 
the ''pillar and ground" of truth, a Church which once 
heard the promise, "When He, the Spirit of truth, is come 
He will teach you all truth." 

The appointed guardian of all revealed truth, the Church 
must find it within her competence to decide what is and 
what is not revealed truth, and in what sense it is revealed 
truth, be it written or unwritten. Hence every part of the 
written record of divine revelation must be subject to her 
interpretation. The Bible as an inspired volume proceeds 
only from God; as a depository of a rule of faith it must 
be interpreted by the Church. Therefore, taken by itself, 
it is not the sole and self-sufiicing rule of faith. Besides the 
Bible and, in the sense just explained, superior to the 
Bible, is the living and abiding authority of a divinely es- 
tablished Church. 

And this brings us to tradition, which, in its active sense, 
is nothing else than the continuous and uninterrupted exer- 
cise of the teaching authority in successive ages. Tradition 
as thus described differs exceedingly from ordinary forms 
of tradition, which furnish so small a guarantee of historic 
truth. In the first place, it is preserved from error by a 
special providence. The promises given by Christ to His 
Church have been fulfilled and the Paraclete has in very 
truth abided with her (John xiv. 16). In the second place, 
every human means has been employed to preserve the 
tradition inviolate. No doctrinal decree is issued without 
a safe anchorage in the past, and each age bears witness to 
the faith of the age preceding it. Finally, the continuity 
of the episcopate, especially as preserved by communion 
with the See of Peter, has kept intact the identity of the 
tradition, just as the continuous life of the soul preserves 
the unity and identity of the human body. 



Bible, The, and Tradition 51 

The necessity of such tradition and authority is obvious 
when we consider that the New Testament, though all true, 
does not contain all the truth. Things were revealed by 
God or lawfully established by the Church of which the 
Scriptures make no mention, one notable example being the 
transfer of the Sabbath from the last to the first day of the 
week. Where is the Scripture warrant for this or for other 
changes, to which even the Protestant Leibnitz calls atten- 
tion, as for instance, "the permission of 'blood and things 
strangled,' the canon of the sacred books, the abrogation 
of immersion in Baptism, and the impediments of Matri- 
mony," — ''some of which," adds Leibnitz, "Protestants 
themselves securely follow, solely on the authority of the 
Church, which they despise in other things?" 

And why should the Scriptures be supposed to contain 
the whole of revelation? Is not this also a Protestant as- 
sumption, accepted blindly and never inquired into ? Does 
the Bible itself tell us that it contains all that Christ 
taught ? Surely not ; and yet the Bible is the Protestant 's 
rule of faith. More than this, it is antecedently improbable 
that the Bible contains the whole of Christian doctrine. 
If it did, the New Testament would be the part of the 
Bible in which that doctrine would be found in its entirety ; 
and yet the circumstances of the origin of the New Testa- 
ment forbid us to think that it either was or was intended 
to be the sole depository of all that Christ came to teach. 

Consider for a moment how the books of the New Testa- 
ment came into existence. The apostles, to begin with, 
taught by word of mouth. This was their normal way of 
spreading the Gospel. Nevertheless, they found it useful in 
the course of time to compose, or have others compose, brief 
histories of Our Lord's life on earth. These have survived 
in the books of the four evangelists. Occasionally, after 
the Faith had been preached in any city — Ephesus, for in- 
stance, Corinth, Rome — and the apostle who had preached 
it had taken his departure, he would address an epistle to 
his spiritual children of that place ; it might be to confirm 
them in the Faith or to correct an abuse. And after the 
Faith had spread to the ends of the earth, Luke, a physi- 
cian, a disciple of St. Paul, wrote the first history of the 
Church — "The >Acts of the Apostles." And when John 
had had his wonderful vision he told the faithful all he had 
seen, in his "Book of the Revelation," or the "Apoca- 



52 Bible, The, and Tradition 

lypse. " At a later period all these writings were collected 
into a single volume. The New Testament, then, is com- 
posed of documents written as occasion required or accord- 
ing as it seemed opportune. Such was the origin even of 
the four Gospels, which were written at different times, 
by different persons, each with its own individual character 
and relating incidents not related in the others ; each, pos- 
sibly, written for a special object, for certainly St. John's 
gospel was written for the special purpose of demonstrating 
the di\dnity of Christ. 

Now, in all this, is there any suggestion of completeness 1 
Is it not likely that some teachings of the apostles would 
not find a place in any such mass of occasional documents ? 
The occasion not requiring it, the doctrine would not be 
committed to writing. Where is there any proof, or sug- 
gestion, or intimation, that a number of fragments, appear- 
ing at different times, would, if put together, form a com- 
plete and independent exhibit of Christian truth, and such 
as would make it quite unnecessary to have recourse to the 
teaching of the Church, such indeed as would reduce the 
Church to a position of utter subordination in respect to the 
books of the New Testament? 

God could, indeed, have intended that the fragments, 
when put together, should form a mosaic in which nothing 
was wanting to complete the picture of Christian revela- 
tion ; but the question at issue is not whether He could have 
so intended, but whether He did. The burden of proof 
lies with those who assert that He did. 

The Protestant mind is so deeply imbued with the idea 
of a Book, containing all that is necessary to be known, a 
Book in which all must read and out of which all must get 
what meaning they can, and, on the other hand, it has lost 
so completely the notion of a Church divinely empowered 
to interpret the sacred books, that writers like ourselves 
might well despair of success in pleading the cause of plain 
logic and common sense did we not know that at least by 
the gi'ace of God, if not solely by human persuasion, many 
have been led to see the fundamental error of the Protes- 
tant position. 

A no less forcible argument than the preceding one lies 
in the fact that the very genuineness of the books compos- 
ing the Bible needs to be vouched for by the authority of 
the Church, and therefore by tradition. The writings com- 



Bible, The, and Tradition 53 

posing the New Testament are not the only writings of 
apostolic times which were in circulation among Christians 
or which laid some claim to authorization. There were 
other gospels besides the four ; as, for instance, the gospel 
of the Hebrews and the gospel of St. Matthias. They were 
numerous enough to be counted by the dozen. These are 
kno-^TL to-day as the apocr}T)hal gospels. Whatever amount 
of truth they contain, they have been from the earliest 
centuries excluded from the list of inspired writings. But 
hy whom or hy what were they so excluded? By the only 
authority competent to deal with them — that of the Church. 
It was the Church that fixed what is called the Canon of 
Scripture ; that is to say, which separated the inspired 
books from the uninspired. It is the constant maintenance 
of the true Canon of Scripture — and this is tradition — that 
has handed down to the present generation the pure and 
unadulterated word of God. Consequently if our Protes- 
tant friends possess to-daj^ a Bible which is in any degree 
genuine they owe it to Catholic tradition. 

The need of authority and tradition in determining the 
rule of faith and worship is forcibly illustrated by the arbi- 
trary way in which Protestants, from the beginning, have 
appealed to the Old Testament in matters of the first mo- 
ment. Every Christian knows that a vast change was in- 
augurated by the coming and teaching of Christ. Old 
ordinances were abrogated and new ones introduced. The 
details of this great change were announced either by Our 
Lord Himself or by His Church enjoying plenitude of 
power. That such high authorization was needed was the 
conviction of all Christendom before the advent of Protes- 
tantism. 

Where Scripture was silent or not sufficiently explicit 
on the subject of the great changes it was understood that 
either the word of Christ or the word of the Church was 
alone decisive. What, then, are we to think of the conduct 
of sectarians, appearing at a late age in the history of 
the Church and presuming to settle on the basis of the Old 
Testament questions whicli had been settled centuries be- 
fore; as when Luther, for instance, to justify his official 
authorization of Philip of Hesse's taking of a second wife 
during the lifetime of the first, enunciated the principle 
that what could be done under the Law of Moses c«uld be 
done under the law of Christ? What are we to think of 



54 Blessed Virgin, The 

the inconsistency, and consequently of the arbitrary and 
independent conduct, of sectarians in our age who in the 
case of marriage impediments choose to follow the Church 
in some matters where Scripture is silent, thus acknowl- 
edging the Church 's authority, whilst in others they appeal 
to the Law of Deuteronomy ? Has God left the determining 
of these matters to the caprice of individuals? 

The ultimate rule of faith is, therefore, not the Bible, but 
the authority of the Church. The Bible is the word of 
God, but it needs to be interpreted by the traditional teach- 
ing of the Church. 



BLESSED VIRGIN, THE 

Objections. — To a non-Catholic, devotion to 
the Virgin Mary seems to be given a very undue 
prominence in Catholic worship: witness the 
feasts of Mary and the frequent devotions to 
Mary. Besides, there is little or nothing to dis- 
tinguish this homage from a real worship of one 
of God's creatures. 

The Answer. — The Catholic Church as seen from the 
outside does, perhaps very naturally, present to non-Cath- 
olics what seem to be objectionable features, such as the 
one complained of above, but not always after careful and 
honest inquiry. The Catholic religion — to borrow a com- 
parison from Cardinal Wiseman, which we have used else- 
where — sometimes produces on outside observers the effect 
which a stained-glass window produces on a passer-by on 
the street in the daytime. The forms represented on the 
window are distorted and the picture is unintelligible ; and 
in the same manner the forms and proportions of things 
within the Catholic Church produce a false impression 
on those who see things from without. Within the fold of 
the Church the impression is altogether different, as in- 
numerable converts can testify. 

The truth is that devotion to Mary, however prominent 
in the services of the Church, plays an essentially subordi- 
nate part in the entire system of Catholic devotion ; and, 
what is more to the purpose, it is a?i essentially different 
thing from the worship paid to God. God, as being the 



Blessed Virgin, The 55 

supreme Lord of the universe, is adored; Mary is only 
venerated — not adored or worshiped — as the Mother of 
the Son of God made man. Mary is prayed to, but only 
as the most powerful intercessor before the throne of God. 
Between the worship of God and the veneration of Mary 
there is a gulf as wide as the one between God and His 
creatures — between the Infinite and the finite. 

And yet God Himself has deigned to associate Mary so 
intimately with Himself in the work of the Redemption 
that no Christian can realize what is told us in the Gospels 
without giving a prominence in his thoughts to the human 
instrument employed by the Almighty for the accomplish- 
ment of His designs. Think of the essential dignity of the 
Mother of the Incarnate Word. Think of the praises lav- 
ished upon her by the inspired voices of angels and men. 
* ' Hail, full of grace, ' ' or, if you will, ' ' Hail, thou who art 
so highly favored" — ''The Lord is with thee; blessed art 
thou among women;" these are the words of the Angel 
Gabriel, who added: ''The Holy Ghost shall come upon 
thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. 
And therefore also the Holy One that shall be born of thee 
shall be called the Son of God" (Luke i. 28-35).— "And it 
came to pass that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of 
Mary the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was 
filled with the Holy Ghost. And she cried out with a loud 
voice and said : Blessed art thou among women and blessed 
is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me that 
the Mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke i. 
41-43). — "And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the 
Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour ; be- 
cause He hath regarded the lowliness of His handmaid; 
for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me 
blessed" {Ihid. 46-48). Such is the greatness of Mary as 
reflected in the narrative of the inspired writer. When 
angels and saints imite in sounding the praises of Mary, 
the Church of God cannot he silent. 

The recognition of her dignity and of her personal merits 
was one of the most prominent features of the devotion of 
the early Church. The Roman Catacombs, in which the 
first Christians took refuge from the violence of their perse- 
cutors, exhibit even to-day unmistakable evidence of early 
devotion to the Blessed Virgin. Visitors to the Catacombs 
may see her represented on the walls of those underground 



56 Blessed Virgin, The 

chambers just as she is represented in Catholic churches 
of our time. And that these pictures illustrate a devotion 
that was universal among the Christians of the first cen- 
turies is attested by the extant writings of the period. Open 
the works of the Fathers and testimonies multiply as you 
turn the pages. The writings of St. Irenaeus, St. Gregory 
Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Ephrem (Syrus), St. 
Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Peter Chrysologus, St. Proclus, 
St. Basil of Seleucia, contain passages relating to Mary 
that are worded like any typical passages that may be taken 
from Catholic writings of our own day. 

' ' Through her, ' ' says St. Proclus, * ' all women are blessed. 
. . . Eve is healed. . . Mary is venerated as becomes the 
Mother, the handmaid, the cloud, the bridechamber, the 
Ark of the Lord. . . . Therefore, we say, Blessed art thou 
amongst women, who alone hast found a remedy for Eve's 
sorrow, hast alone wiped away the tears of that mourner, 
hast carried the price of the world's redemption, hast re- 
ceived the treasure of the pearl in trust." 

And St. Ambrose: ''Let the virginity and life of the 
Blessed Mary be drawn before you as in a picture, from 
whom as if in a mirror is reflected the face of Chastity and 
Virtue's figure. ... In learning, the prime stimulus is to 
be found in the nobleness of the teacher; now what has 
more nobleness than God's Mother?" 

Not only praise and veneration were bestowed on Mary 
by the Fathers; they also invoked her intercession. One 
among several instances is found in the Sacramentary of 
Pope Gelasius: "We beseech Thee, Almighty God, that 
the glorious intercession of the blessed and ever-glorious 
Virgin Mary, Mother of God, may protect us and bring us 
to eternal life." 

This was the doctrine and practice of an age which our 
separated brethren generally regard as an age of pure wor- 
ship. 

The Blessed Virgin is honored as the most highly favored 
of God's creatures, but only as such. She is prayed to 
only as one who can pray for us. This, which is the genuine 
Catholic doctrine, is taught in all our children 's catechisms. 
If in Catholic devotions there occur any expressions that 
seem to non-Catholics to attribute to Mary anything more 
than intercessory power, these expressions are very rare 
and are never intended to mean more than that she obtains 



Blessed Virgin, The 57 

from God everything she asks. Catholics do not ordinarily 
pray as though they were conscious of the presence of hos- 
tile critics, but they have no doubt about the meaning of 
their own words. Some of our popular treatises on the 
Blessed Virgin are no less unpalatable to Protestant tastes ; 
and naturally so, for Protestants do not realize as Cath- 
olics do the unspeakable dignity of one who was made the 
Mother of the Word Incarnate ; nor do they appreciate as 
Catholics do what it is to have so great a friend at court 
as the Mother of the glorified Jesus. Though at the same 
time it should be borne in mind that in all devotions apart 
from the direct worship of God even Catholics have their 
personal tastes. While they all agree that God's saints 
should be honored, they have their personal attractions 
and repugnances as regards particular ways of honoring 
them and praying to them. 

Objection. — Devotion to the Blessed Virgin may be 
reasonable enough when practised in moderation, but in 
Catholic practice it obtrudes itself everywhere. The more 
devotion to Mary the less devotion to her Son. 

Answer. — Again our objector sees the stained-glass win- 
dows from the wrong side. He may have dropped into a 
Catholic church in the evening and heard the sodality sing- 
ing the Litany of the Blessed Virgin or the preacher des- 
canting on one of her virtues (a most Christian act) ; but 
let him get up in the morning earlier than usual and betake 
himself to the nearest parish church, any day in the week. 
There he will find a number of silent worshipers ab- 
sorbed in something that is taking place at the altar. At 
the ringing of a little bell the silence is solemn and all heads 
are bowed in adoration. Some minutes later a number of 
persons approach the altar-rail to receive the Bread of 
Heaven. Here is the central act of Catholic worship, in 
comparison with which all things else are insignificant, or 
rather, it is through this that all things else have any value. 
The week-day scene just described is repeated on Sunday, 
only with more solemnity. On that day the churches are 
thronged, and are filled again and again in successive hours, 
whilst the churches of other denominations are often half 
empty. Evidently devotion to the Blessed Virgin does not 
draw us away from Christ. 

Strange, that the very Church that is accused of wor- 
shiping the creature instead of the Creator should be dis- 



58 Catholic and Protestant Countries 

tinguished among all the churches for its adherence to the 
central doctrine of Christianity, the divinity of Christ. In 
an age when Protestantism is losing its grasp of that truth 
— if not in its formularies at least in the sincere belief of 
many Protestants, including ministers — the Catholic 
Church not only believes it and teaches it with uncompro- 
mising fidelity, but gives the most solemn expression to its 
belief in its public worship. What can compare with the 
external splendor or the intensity of personal devotion as- 
sociated with the great feasts commemorating the mysteries 
of Our Lord 's life ; His Birth, His Passion, His Resurrec- 
tion ? Holy Week has a meaning in the Catholic Church ; 
it has little or no meaning elsewhere. Evidently, again, 
devotion to the Blessed Virgin does not draw us away from 
Christ. 

But its effect in this regard is not merely negative: it 
positively draws us nearer to Christ. The feasts of the 
Blessed Virgin mark a general increase of fervor. The 
faithful are present at the holy sacrifice of the Mass, and 
very many receive Communion after confessing their sins 
with humble and sincere contrition. Innumerable converts 
to the Church, who now see the Church from within, know 
from experience that true and sincere worship of God is 
promoted by devotion to the Mother of the Incarnate Son 
of God. 

BOYCOTTS 

See "Labor Unions." 

CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT 
COUNTRIES* 

The Charge. — The leading countries of the 
v^^orld to-day are Protestant. Great Britain, 
Germany, and the United States are the foremost 
nations in point of political power, commerce and 

*It may be well to remind the reader that this article, as well as 
all the otherss was written before the outbreak of the Great War, 
an event which has set many things in a new light; but the only 
effect it can have upon the article is to place additional emphasis 
upon one of the important lessons which the author has sought to 
convey. 



Catholic and Protestant Countries 59 

industry, and general enlightenment; whilst 
Catholic countries, such as Spain, Italy, and Ire- 
land, are very unprogressive, and France is ap- 
parently on the decline. 

The Reply. — The above indictment of Catholic coun- 
tries is misleading as a statement of facts and is false in the 
inferences lurking in it. But before coming to close quar- 
ters with it let us glance at the spirit as well as at the 
logical bearings of the anti-Catholic contention in the mat- 
ter. 

In the first place, is it a commendable thing to be in- 
sisting so much on temporal prosperity as a test of the 
merits of a religion? The great test of any religion must 
be found in its spiritual elements. And, after all, is not the 
Protestant argument one that could be turned to good ac- 
count, in their own favor, by the Jews? The children of 
Abraham might plead in their own case that, although scat- 
tered over the face of the earth and without a country, 
they nevertheless bear with them a mark of divine favor 
in the possession of the good things of this life. The Israel- 
ites had indeed the promise of temporal prosperity as re- 
gards a good deal more than the possession of gold, a prom- 
ise whose fulfillment depended on their fidelity to God ; but 
for us Gentiles, Ig there any law that infallibly points to 
temporal well-being as a sign of spiritual well-being and 
divine approbation? 

Think of the strange inferences that might be based upon 
such a principle. Pagan Japan has recently stepped into 
the front rank of nations: does that fact make Shintoism, 
or Buddhism, or Confucianism, any better than it was ten 
years ago? Does Russia's colossal power argue that what 
Protestants are pleased to call Russian superstition bears 
the seal of divine approval ? 

In the second place, if the anti-Catholic argument is 
valid to-day, it must have been valid long before to-day. 
Well, then, let us go back a couple of centuries. At that 
period the dominant nations were Spain, Austria, and 
Prance— Catholic countries, all three. Apply the Protes- 
tant principle to that situation and see how it works. And 
suppose the whirligig of time should bring about a similar 
situation in the future— what then? It really looks as 
though our separated brethren were taking advantage of 



60 Catholic and Protestant Countries 

the fact that just at present the wheel of fortune has placed 
the Protestant nations at the top. But suppose it should be 
given a new turn— Protestant prosperity and Protestant 
arguments would have a great fall. The secret of the pros- 
perity of the leading nations of to-day is not to be found in 
Protestantism; it must be sought elsewhere; but on that 
point we shall have a word to say presently. 

We have been granting that the leading powers are Prot- 
estant, but the statement needs a qualification. In Ger- 
many considerably more than a third of the population is 
Catholic, and for many years the Catholic party has held 
the balance of power. If we turn to our own country we 
find that under the rule of the Federal Government there 
are some twenty-two or twenty-three million Catholics. Our 
Catholic ancestors played an important part in the making 
of our country and in the development of its resources. 
Their children to-day are forging ahead in all directions, 
and where they find a fair opening are proving to the 
world that their Catholicity is no bar to success in a worldly 
sense. As to France, all its greatness dates from its Cath- 
olic past, and it still remains the richest country per capita 
in the world. But after all, why confine our attention to the 
greater nations? Greater and less do not change the spe- 
cies. There is a group of smaller nations that may be 
studied no less profitably than the larger. Sweden is a 
Protestant nation and in the days of yore was one of the 
doughtiest champions of Protestantism. What is Sweden 
to-day? And what is its recent consort, Norway? Both 
countries are but ciphers in the great transactions of the 
modern world. 

Protestant Sweden was on the way to imperial greatness 
when she fell into the hands of Charles XII. The chivalric 
follies of that monarch soon stripped the country of impor- 
tant possessions, drained the national treasury and sacri- 
ficed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Swedes. Inter- 
nal dissensions and other causes gradually lopped off her 
dependencies and completed her ruin. We shall not be so 
ungenerous as to attribute the decline of Sweden to Protes- 
tantism, but we would ask for the same impartiality on the 
side of our critics in dealing with Catholic countries. Hol- 
land is a Protestant country in the sense in which Germany 
is, and Holland, we admit, is not by any means starving; 
but to what trifling dimensions its greatness is shrunk if the 



Catholic and Protestant Countries 61 

Holland of to-day be compared with the Holland that was 
once on the point of becoming a world-power and ranking 
with Great Britain and France. Belgium is a Catholic 
country, and yet it may be pointed to as an object-lesson in 
general progressiveness. It is a bee-hive of industry, and on 
the whole is probably the most happy and prosperous coun- 
try in the w^orld. Its well-filled treasury, its thriving com- 
merce, its social and economic institutions, models of their 
kind, are a pointed refutation of the oft-repeated charge 
that Catholicism unfits a nation to achieve temporal happi- 
ness and prosperity. 

But the treatment of questions like the present one would 
be utterly superficial if we failed to get at the real causes of 
national prosperity. Now these are proved to consist, in 
the main, in purely natural advantages possessed by the 
nations that have prospered. Qualities of soil and climate, 
geographical position, and in our time the possession of 
native coal; these circumstances, together with the more 
exceptional ones of national temperament favoring pro- 
gress, and the occasional guiding influence of great men, 
are the dominant factors producing what is called national 
greatness. It is easy to talk in a high strain of the pro- 
gressive spirit generated by the ' ' true Evangel ' ' ; and it 
may be a trifle unpoetical to have to descend from so high 
an altitude to the consideration of such practical realities 
as coal-beds; but it has the great advantage of bringing 
one nearer to the truth. To eschew such considerations is 
to act the part of a superficial philosopher. 

England without her supply of native coal would to-day 
rank as a second or third rate power. On the continent 
it is the presence or the absence of such natural advantages 
that must account for the difference, not only between 
country and country, but also between parts of one and 
the same country. The visitor to Germany entering from 
the West lights first upon the Rhine Province, which na- 
ture has dowered with a rich vintage and fields of golden 
grain, whilst a plentiful supply of native coal ministers to 
commerce and manufactures. The Rhine Province is main- 
ly Catholic. On the other hand, East Prussia, which is 
predominantly Protestant, is a comparative waste, and 
there the industries languish. A like comparison might 
be drawn between Catholic Bavaria and Protestant Saxony. 

Jt must be noted, however, as regards the present domin- 



62 Catholic and Protestant Countries 

ion of coal, that it is likely to be supplanted in no small 
degree by the utilization of the natural waterfall as a mo- 
tive agent. Here is Italy's chance; and as a matter of 
fact Italy has begun to improve the advantages she pos- 
sesses in the watercourses of the Apennines. 

And what about Catholic Spain? Where Spain is not 
hated she is regarded with a mournful interest such as is 
always awakened by the sight of fallen greatness. Spain's 
great good fortune in the sixteenth and seventeenth cen- 
turies proved her bane in the end. Immense colonial in- 
terests and a large influx of the precious metals diverted 
her attention from those truer sources of wealth, agricul- 
ture and commerce. But there is nothing to lead us to 
think that if her interests had been in the guardianship 
of Protestants they would have fared better. Political folly 
entailing the loss of large possessions may be abundantly 
illustrated from the history of Sweden, Holland, and Eng- 
land. 

As to Ireland, it is true, doubtless, that she is the least 
prosperous country in the world; but there is no need of 
pleading her cause, here or elsewhere. It has been suc- 
cessfully pleaded at the bar of civilization. One thing is 
constantly evidenced by Irishmen, and that is that wherever 
they find a field for the display of their native energy — 
as in the United States, Canada, and Australia — they show 
the world that centuries of ill usage have neither damped 
their spirit nor dulled their power of thought or action. 

So it really does look as though our critics had been 
building up an argument against us on the basis of the 
merest accidents of political and economic history. But 
even though their argument were more logical, there is one 
fact that should weigh more than all others in the estimate 
formed of modern European nations ; to wit, that the great- 
ness of some of the leading countries of Europe is reared 
upon the unscrupulous statecraft of those who had in 
their hands the making of those nations in days gone 
by. "We need but mention the names of Frederick II 
of Prussia, Catherine II of Russia, and the Man of Blood 
and Iron who was the creator of the present German Em- 
pire. Are the critics of Catholicism prepared to admit with 
these worthies that it matters not how a state is made pro- 
vided it is made ? 

But the day will come when the nations will no longer 



Celibacy 63 

be classified as Catholic and Protestant and when the strug- 
gle will no longer be between different forms of Christian 
belief. Religion and Irreligion will then be the only con- 
testants in the field ; and in that day the one great bulwark 
of religion will be the Catholic and Apostolic (or Roman) 
Church ; for in no other religious body is there such prom- 
ise of vitality, engendered by unity, as that held out by 
the Church which is under the guidance of the successor of 
St. Peter. 



CELIBACY 

A Prejudice.— "Take from the Catholic Church 
the compulsory celibacy of its priests, and the 
universal sway of the Church is at an end." Celi- 
bacy is unbiblical and its effect on morality is 
dubious. — Tschackert. 

The Truth. — We admit without the slightest reservation 
that the celibacy of the clergy is of vital importance to 
the Catholic Church in the prosecution of its divine mis- 
sion. None but an unmarried clergy could wield the in- 
fluence or win the credit or authority needed for the suc- 
cessful guidance and government of the faithful of Christ. 
None but unmarried clergymen are fitted to go as mis- 
sionaries to foreign lands and labor there for the conversion 
of souls. This statement is amply borne out by the history 
of non-Catholic missions. (See Makshall^s ''Christian 
Missions.") The missionaries of Canada, the Far West, 
and South America have a unique place in history owing 
to their self-sacrificing devotion. How changed their story 
would he if wives and offspring and domestic finances fig- 
ured in its pages! 

Nay, even in Christian countries none but unmarried 
priests could risk their comfort, to say nothing of their 
lives, as Catholic priests do to-day in their ministrations 
to souls. Without her unmarried clergy the Catholic 
Church could never have accomplished all that she has in 
the course of centuries. The salutary influence of clergy 
upon people which is one of the fruits of celibacy may be 
styled universal dominion if our critics are minded to call 
it such ; we shall not make that a casus belli. 

The objector seems to regard the compulsory element 



64 Celibacy 

in celibacy as the secret of the Church 's power ; but in no 
absolute sense does the Church compel any of her children 
to be celibates. No one is under anj^ obligation to enter the 
priesthood. To force one into the priesthood is forbidden 
by the laws of the Church. It is only after a voluntary 
reception of the higher orders that one is obliged to remain 
unmarried; and the obligation then imposed upon her 
clerics by the Church is justified and to a great extent ne- 
cessitated by the nature of their clerical functions. 

There are other professions in which the unmarried state 
is preferred as a condition of success. In the teaching pro- 
fession, for instance, preference is given to unmarried wo- 
men over those who have the cares of family life. Why 
should it be a reproach to the Church to require in candi- 
dates for the priesthood conditions that will make them 
more efficient priests ? Add to this the fact that the young 
men who present themselves for orders not only voluntarily 
but cheerfully make this sacrifice of their liberty in order 
to devote themselves the more to God and the Church. 

But we are told that celibacy is contrary to the teaching 
of the Bible. Strange that the statement should be made 
by any one who has read the Bible. Is it not well known 
that Christ gave the highest praise to voluntary celibacy 
when it was chosen for the sake of the kingdom of heaven 
(Matt. xix. 12), and that St. Paul places voluntary vir- 
ginity far above the married state ? When Protestant read- 
ers of the New Testament come to the seventh chapter of 
the First Epistle to the Corinthians they would do well 
to pause awhile and ask themselves whether they have ever 
understood the plain meaning of that chapter, which really 
seems to be very Catholic and very un-Protestant. Let 
them read that chapter as well as the nineteenth of St. 
Matthew, referred to above, and if then they can regard 
the effect of celibacy on morality as dubious, their opinion 
is clearly at variance with the words of Christ and His 
Apostle. 



Ceremonies in Piihlic Worship 65 

CEREMONIES IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 

Erroneous View. — The public worship of the 
Catholic Church captivates the senses, but it sa- 
vors little of adoration in spirit and in truth. 
(Tschackert.) 

The Truth. — The worship of the ancient Jewish religion 
captivated the senses, and yet it was instituted by God Him- 
self. It was not simply and solely a matter of external 
ceremony. It was a worship in truth, though not as yet 
in the fulness of truth. 

Christian worship was indeed intended to be an adora- 
tion in spirit and in truth ; but it does not follow that it 
was not to have any external expression. Christ Himself 
practised outward worship in the ceremonies of the Pasch 
and in the institution of the Eucharist. It was He who 
instituted the sacraments of the Church, and the sacra- 
ments are outward rites as well as means of interior sancti- 
fication. 

Outward ceremony must, of course, be animated by an 
interior spirit. Such is the teaching of the Catholic cate- 
chism. But interior worship is not enough, at least for 
mortals like ourselves, who possess both bodies and souls. 
Interior worship without the external expression would be 
imperfect. It would not be the worship of the entire man. 

Protestants themselves are conscious of the deficiencies 
of their modes of public worship. They feel the need of 
something to stimulate their adoration in spirit and in 
truth. If outward forms disappear, the habit of inner wor- 
ship is likely to evaporate. A man who never prays with his 
lips will soon forget to pray in his heart. Our being is so 
framed that we must lean for support upon outward acts 
if we would preserve what is interior. 

The great Leibnitz, though a Protestant, was in perfect 
accord with the Catholic view in this matter — a fact which 
is evident in the following striking passages taken from his 
''System of Theology": 

'*I do not agree with those who, forgetful of human 
weakness, reject under pretence of the 'adoration in spirit 
and in truth' everything that strikes the senses and excites 
the imagination. For every one who seriously considers the 
nature of our mind as it exists in this body will easily admit 



66 Ceremonies in Public Worship 

that, although we can form within the mind ideas of things 
which are outside the sphere of sense, yet we are unable, 
notwithstanding, to fix our thoughts upon them and to 
dwell on them with attention, unless there be superadded 
to the internal idea certain sensible signs, such as words, 
characters, representations, likenesses, examples, associa- 
tions, or effects." ''Whatever leads the mind most ef- 
fectually to the consideration of God's greatness and good- 
ness, whatever excites our attention, reproduces pious 
thoughts, nay, whatever renders devotion sweet and grate- 
ful, all this is deserving of approval." '*I am of opin- 
ion that God does not disregard as unworthy of His service, 
the use of musical instruments, nor vocal harmony, nor 
beautiful hymns, nor sacred eloquence, nor lights, nor in- 
cense, nor precious vestments, jewelled vases, or other of- 
ferings ; nor statues or graven images of pious objects ; nor 
the laws of architecture and perspective, nor public pro- 
cessions, the chiming of bells, the strewing the streets with 
carpets, and the other expedients which the overflowing 
piety of the people has devised for the divine honor, and 
which certain people, in their morose simplicity, despise." 
—London Ed., 1850, p. 48-50. 

Those who hold the Protestant view seem to regard the 
gorgeous ceremonial of the Catholic Church as something 
purely adventitious, or as something merely laid on from 
without, as flowers and festoons are used to decorate a ban- 
quet-hall. The truth is that Catholic ceremonial springs 
from the very heart of interior Catholic faith and worship. 
It is a thing that grows from within and unfolds itself to 
outward view as a matter of necessity. Granted a Cath- 
olic's firm belief in the real presence of Christ the Son of 
God under the sacramental species : granted a belief that 
He is our continual Guest and holds His court invisible 
within the sanctuary of His temple ; what is more natural 
than to surround His presence with the pomp and magnifi- 
cence which ordinarily accompany the great ones of the 
earth? It is not simply a question of Catholic devotion 
arraying itself in gorgeous apparel. It is much more a 
question of its showing its own interior spirit in the most 
natural and expressive manner. It is thus that Catholic 
ceremony, because vitally connected with true interior de- 
votion, is not a hindrance to true devotion, but rather fur- 



Chance 67 

nishes a natural outlet for it, at the same time that it re- 
acts upon it and intensifies it. 

We may remark in conclusion that the use made of the 
phrase ' ' adoration in spirit and in truth " is a fair sample 
of the purely mechanical application of texts of Scripture 
introduced by the Reformation. The expression was used 
by Our Lord in His conversation with the woman at the 
well. (John iv). He tells her that the time is at hand 
when there shall no longer be any question whether Jeru- 
salem or Samaria is the true place of worship, but when 
God shall be honored by a worship ha\dng its origin in the 
illumination of the Spirit and in the fulness of the truth 
about to be revealed. There is not the smallest intimation 
of Our Lord 's disapproval of the ceremonies of divine wor- 
ship. 

CHANCE 

A Thoughtless Assertion. — The world owes its 
existence to chance. 

The Truth. — The world does not owe its existence to 
chance, for, absolutely speaking, nothing is due to chance. 
One of the earliest principles taught us is that nothing 
either is or takes place without a sufficient reason. This is 
so clear that no reflecting man will deny it. One of the 
comjiionest questions asked by children and grown persons 
alike is, How do you account for this ? or, Who made that ? 
And yet full-grown men and women are heard to say that 
the world was made by chance. 

The only real significance the phrase can have is that 
the causes of some things are unknown. ' ' Made by chance ' ' 
is a convenient expression for those who reject creation 
or who deny the existence of God. As there was no God 
to create the world and as the world could not have pro- 
duced itself, it must have been produced — by what? By 
chance, of course. But what is chance? It is . . . ! 

And yet the word ''chance" has a meaning. If two 
friends should meet quite accidentally on the street, their 
meeting would be attributed to chance. The word would 
then be used in a relative sense, the only sense it can really 
have. There was no reason why the two friends should 
have met, so far as any previous intention was concerned. 



68 *^ Christian Science'* 

Hence, relatively to the intention, or simply in a relative 

sense of the word, the meeting was the result of chance. 
There is no cause to which it can be attributed so far as 
intention was concerned ; hence the term has a negative and 
exclusive force and indicates no positive agent of any kind. 
But if one cause of the meeting of the friends is excluded, 
the existence of other causes is not denied. So far as other 
causes were concerned the meeting was not accidental, but 
the necessary result of deliberate acts of volition. The 
one friend had resolved to go to a certain place — that was 
one act of volition. The other friend had resolved to go 
in the same direction — second act of volition. There were 
two positive causes operating toward the production of 
the one result. 

In no absolute sense, therefore, can anything be said to 
be produced by chance. There is always some positive 
cause to which its production must be referred. For what 
regards the positive cause of the world's existence we must 
refer the reader to the article entitled "God's Existence." 



^^CHRISTIAN SCIENCE" 

The New Religion. — "Christian Science is 
based on teachings of Scripture which it inter- 
prets, giving the Christ principle in divine meta- 
physics which heals the sick and sinner. It ex- 
plains all cause and effect as mental, and shows 
the scientific relation of man to God." — Mrs. 
Eddy's "Science and Health." 

The Truth About It. — ^What is called ** Christian 
Science" is in reality neither Christian nor scientific. The 
adoption of the name is indeed a tribute to two great fac- 
tors of modern civilization and an acknowledgment of their 
power, but is nevertheless an affront offered both to Science 
and to Christianity. 

"Christian Science" is a form of worship and a system 
of healing founded by Mrs. Mary Baker Glover Eddy. 
Mary Baker, known latterly as Mrs. Eddy, was born at 
Bow, near Concord, N. H., in 1821. She was clever as a 
child, but she received little instruction within the walls of 
the class-room ; never, in fact, getting beyond the three R 's. 
She gravely but naively tells us, however, that a brother 



** Christian Science*' 69 

of hers, a student at Dartmouth, taught her a great deal 
of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and that at the age of ten 
natural philosophy, logic, and ethics were her favorite stud- 
ies. Her progress in these more abstract branches must 
have come to a halt early in her career. Logic, certainly, 
was not her forte in later years. 

Though a farmer's daughter and living in a house in 
which every one else worked, she was permitted to grow 
up in idleness ; but this was partly due to her physical ail- 
ments. An exceedingly sensitive nervous system showed 
itself in frequent ^ts of hysteria ; and even in the intervals 
between her hysterical fits she was troubled with a morbid 
restlessness, which could only be appeased by some form 
of bodily motion, as walking or rocking. As late as her 
married life she had to be rocked in a huge cradle made for 
her special accommodation. 

But apart from her physical ills there was always about 
her an air of superiority that secured her the privilege of 
playing the lady. She was possessed of an extraordinary 
amount of quiet self-assertion and a certain masterfulness 
of will which stuck to her throughout her life, carrying her 
through all manner of vicissitudes, through the experience 
of three marriages and one divorce, and through a host of 
difficulties incident to the propagation of her new system, 
till finally, before her demise, it landed her safely on the 
Olympus which is the abode of the venerated founders and 
foundresses of new religions. 

At the period of Mary Baker's youth New England was 
the great rallying-place of most of the strange isms that 
have lighted on this orb of ours. Mesmerism and Spiritism 
were particularly rampant. Mary Baker went with the 
current, dabbling in Mesmerism and practising Spiritism 
and clairvoyance as an amateur. The great turning-point 
of her life was her visit as a patient to Dr. Phineas Park- 
hurst Quimby, at Portland, Maine. Quimby was "Doctor" 
only by courtesy, for he had received no medical training. 
The son of a blacksmith at Lebanon, N. H., and a clock- 
maker by profession, he is nevertheless described as an 
original thinker and a questioner of received opinions — in 
fact, something of a village philosopher. 

Quimby was caught by the prevalent mesmeric fever and 
practised Mesmerism and mind-reading in connection with 
healing. He finally got an inspiration. He discovered, or 



70 *' Christian Science' ' 

thought he discovered, that the secret of his cures lay, not 
in Mesmerism, but in the implanting in the minds of his 
patients a belief in their future recovery. He was at last 
convinced that no disease has any real existence except in 
the mind, and that, therefore, the most direct and effectual 
means of curing diseases of all sorts would be to operate 
exclusively on the mind. So, henceforth, it was physic and 
Mesmerism to the dogs ! 

Dr. Quimby 's method of healing was apparently a species 
of suggestion, in its present technical sense. It was a pure- 
ly natural means of restoring health in the case of certain 
diseases. Any gentle and unobtrusive means of getting the 
patient into the right frame of mind was employed. The 
healer would first gain the confidence of the sufferer and 
would use some insinuating method of producing in his 
mind the proper state of ''receptivity." Then by repeat- 
ing a word or a sentence several times, or by a look or an 
attitude, or even by a spell of silence, he would gradually 
influence the patient's thoughts so as to bring them into 
perfect unison with his own; and the disease disappeared 
with the thought of it and the belief in it. 

Besides the practical part of his system there was a set 
of abstract doctrines that gradually developed in Quim- 
by 's mind. These, with the aid of his friends, he managed 
to set forth in a series of essays, which he sometimes com- 
municated to his patients. Mingled with his practical pre- 
cepts were a number of very Quimbyish conceptions of 
Christian' truths; and these, according to one of Mrs. 
Eddy's biographers, were much the same in substance as 
Mrs. Eddy's theorizings in later years. The terminology, 
we are also assured by the same authority, was often identi- 
cal with that used afterward by the foundress, and Quim- 
by in one or two places even called his system ' * Christian 
Science. ' ' 

Attracted by the Doctor's reputation, Mary Baker, who 
by that time had become Mrs. Patterson, came to Portland 
in 1862. After a course of ''scientific" treatment she was 
partially cured. She felt she had a new lease of life, and 
was loud in her praise of the great physician. She re- 
mained a while in Portland and had access to Quimby 's 
papers. Was it from Quimby that she learned the theory 
and practice of "Christian Science"? That is a question 
upon which we shall not enter. At a later period she cer- 



*' Christian Science' ' 71 

tainly repudiated all indebtedness to Quimby and claimed 
that the system she taught originated with herself. Whether 
she was justified in so doing is a question on which others 
have taken sides, but which does not concern us here. 

It is needless to follow Mrs. Eddy through her checkered 
career after her dealings with Dr. Quimby. Suffice it to 
say that during a long struggle for existence she clung to 
her healing system and gradually succeeded in gaining 
many adherents to it, chiefly among Spiritualists. Mean- 
while the new religion was taking shape in her mind — a 
religion that was to be the basis and the interpretation of 
the new method of curing. In this new religious system 
every distinctive doctrine of Christianity is set aside; the 
Trinity, the Incarnation, the Creation, the Fall of Man, 
the idea of sin in general, the Redemption, and the Last 
Judgment. And yet the foundress professes to base it on 
the Gospels. Taxed with inconsistency, she would tell you 
that Christian Science is indeed opposed to the literal mean- 
ing of the Gospels, but that there is a hidden or esoteric 
meaning known to Christ and a chosen few ! It is the old 
Gnostic vagary over again. 

According to this new revelation there is no such thing as 
either disease or sin. Disease is but an error of the mind, 
of ''mortal mind" as distinguished from the "Divine 
Mind," or the ''Divine Principle." Mind is the only 
reality ; matter has no being ; our bodies are only phantasms 
of the imagination. It is fear that produces disease, or 
seems to produce it, for it has no reality. It is fear that 
produces colics and fevers. It is belief in the possibility 
of broken bones that actually breaks them, or seems to 
break them, for in reality there are no bones to be broken. 
There is no such thing as sin, for we and God are one ; or, 
better, man is the thought of God. But enough of this. 
No sensible man can read such a farrago without making 
an apology to himself for doing so. 

It may seem surprising that the deliramenta of this mis- 
guided woman should have made conquest of so many 
minds ; but no one who reflects on what has been occurring 
here in America these sixty or seventy years past can be 
surprised at the success of any religious movement, no mat- 
ter how strange its antics. A country that has seen the 
rise of Mormons, Spiritists, Theosophists, Economites, Sun 
Worshipers, Dowieites, Angel Dancers, and Holy Ghost and 



72 ''Christian Science'' 

Us societies, will not be surprised at the reception given to 
the extravagances of "Christian Science." There is a 
certain amount of vague religiosity pervading American 
society which is ready to be caught up by any chance wind 
of doctrine. 

But, after all, it is hardly likely that ' ' Christian Science ' ' 
has been adopted by so many for the sake of its abstract 
teachings. It is not Mrs. Eddy's crotchets on the subject 
of life, death, and immortality that have attracted the mul- 
titude. It is the other phase of the system that draws — the 
healing phase. Its theological setting adds to it the dignity 
and the sanction of a religious cult ; but we can easily imag- 
ine what small notice would be taken of Mrs. Eddy's theo- 
logical dreams if they were not associated with the wonder- 
ful, or the seemingly wonderful, in another sphere. This 
much-needed element of the system is supplied by the cure 
of disease. 

What are we to think of the cures attributed to * * Chris- 
tian Science"? 

We must make a distinction: 1. Some of them are, or 
may easily be, genuine. 2. Others are complete and ac- 
knowledged failures. 3. In the case of numberless forms 
of diseases not even an attempt is made to apply the reme- 
dies of "Christian Science." 

As regards the first of these categories, it is not by any 
means a matter of surprise that "Christian Scientists" 
should work a certain number of cures. There are diseases 
which are most effectually healed by the methods of the 
new religionists (we mean, of course, the methods minus 
the admixture of trumpery theology) ; but then the methods 
are not new ; they are known to specialists of the medical 
profession who are certainly innocent of "Christian 
Science." There was no need of Mrs. Eddy's producing a 
travesty of Christianity to prove that there are diseases of 
the body that have their root in the mind, and that the 
best way of curing such diseases is by influencing the 
thoughts and feelings of the sufferers. It is this conviction 
that guides the specialist in his treatment of certain nervous 
disorders. As regards the more special features (if there 
are such) of "Christian Science" treatment, they do 
not seem to be essentially different from the various 
forms of suggestion employed by proficients in psycho- 
physics. 



** Christian Science'^ 73 

Now if Mrs. Eddy has brought into more general notice 
a method of healing which is genuine and has taught others 
how to use it successfully, she has rendered a service to 
humanity; but beyond that point she ceases to be a public 
benefactress. When in connection with her cures she prac- 
tically (we shall not say culpably) foisted upon the un- 
thinking and the credulous a nonsensical set of religious be- 
liefs, she proved herself anything but a benefactress. But 
this is not all. Many of the attempts at healing made by 
her followers have egregiously failed, and in many cases 
the failure has involved the sacrifice of human life. The 
ordinary means of saving life have been deliberately neg- 
lected; and yet it is one of the plainest dictates of com- 
mon sense and of ordinary charity that when any such 
methods of healing as those of "Christian Science" are 
seen to fail the ordinary methods should be resorted to. 
Accordingly, society has justly regarded such transactions 
as criminal. 

There is one large class of human ailments which ' ' Chris- 
tian Science" can do absolutely nothing with. Bruises, 
sprains, abscesses, cancers, fractured or amputated limbs, 
are quite beyond the range of Mrs. Eddy's therapeutics. 
And yet they, too, are supposed to be diseases — or errors — 
of mortal mind. Why can not the errors be eradicated? 
Mrs. Eddy would answer that it is because our faith in the 
Divine Principle is imperfect — we can not entirely rid our- 
selves of the perverse impression that we have broken an 
arm or a leg, and hence the apparent fracture remains. 

But let us remind her of a very notable contrast. She 
has presumed to associate her name in a special manner 
with that of the Divine Saviour of the world ; but how did 
it come to pass that Christ was a more perfect healer than 
Mrs. Eddy? There was no form of disease which He did 
not cure instantaneously. Lepers, lifelong cripples, men 
blind from their birth, were cured by the simple touch of 
His hand, often by a sole word of command. Even the 
dead rose from their graves at His bidding. The seal of 
divine power was upon all His works. When God vouch- 
safes a revelation to the world He connects it with indu- 
bitable manifestations of supernatural power. Mrs. Eddy 
had a revelation to communicate to the world and she could 
appeal only to what was purely natural and human — to 
methods of curing which were not beyond the limits of 



74 Christ's Divinity 

unaided human power and are plainly restricted in their 
range. 

But a word to the wise is sufficient. We fear we have 
exceeded this measure in the case of ''Christian Science." 



CHRIST'S DIVINITY 

A Modern Pronouncement. — One of the re- 
sults of modern criticism is that Jesus of Naza- 
reth no longer stands upon the lofty eminence on 
which His adorers had placed Him. He now 
takes rank only with those great men who ap- 
proach nearest to the divine. In the light of mod- 
ern criticism His miracles are shorn of their su- 
pernatural character. Neither His words nor His 
works prove Him to have been more than man. 

The Christian Dogma. — Jesus of Nazareth is as truly 
God as He is man. Amidst the vauntings of the pseudo- 
science of the age believers in the divinity of Christ should 
give heed to the warning of the Apostle, writing to the Col- 
ossians: '* Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, 
and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, ac- 
cording to the elements of the world, and not according to 
Christ : For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead 
corporeally" (ii. 8, 9). 

A special providence hovering over the doctrine of the 
Incarnation of the Son of God has provided such an abun- 
dance of evidence in its favor that no one who studies the 
subject with any degree of thoroughness and without bias 
should fail to be convinced. The proofs of Christ's di- 
vinity advanced in this short essay are addressed directly 
and chiefly to those who believe in a God and a divine provi- 
dence and who accept, as most contemporary critics do, the 
four Gospels as authentic narratives of facts. To the un- 
believer we hope we shall at least have furnished matter 
for serious reflection. 

Before setting about our main task we shall place be- 
fore our readers a few preliminary observations with a 
view to arranging the perspective for those who may need 
to be shown things in their just proportions. 



Christ *s Divinity 75 

I. — JESUS OF NAZARETH AND MODERN THOUGHT 

What proofs of Christ's divinity are likely to be the 
most effective in our age? We are convinced that no new 
ones are needed, as the old ones have lost nothing of their 
force. The one great source of arguments in favor of 
Christ's divinity is Christ's own life. It was the story of 
His life that convinced the world in the beginning, and the 
story of His life has lost nothing of its convincing power 
in the lapse of time. 

But is no account to be taken of modern thought? 

Much less than is sometimes supposed. So far as the 
question of Christ's divinity is concerned we fail to see 
any difference between the thought of the twentieth cen- 
tury and the thought of the first. The present century has 
its own methods of attack and defense, but its weapons 
are substantially the same as those of the first. If to-day 
there are materialists and phenomenalists and atheists and 
deists and agnostics and evolutionists and rationalists and 
spiritists and mystics, each and all of these types of think- 
ers were represented in the society of the early Christian 
centuries. They were to be found in the various schools 
of Epicureanism, Stoicism, or Neo-Platonism, or were con- 
nected with one or other of the systems classed as skeptical, 
mystical, or oriental. Our modern philosophies are the old 
philosophies revamped. They have run through one or 
more cycles of their existence and now seem destined to 
run through another, till again vanquished by the truth. 

It was in an age so similar to ours that the doctrine of 
Christ's divinity first won the assent of a large part of the 
human race. The philosophers were not, it is true, the first 
to receive the light ; but when they were attracted to it they 
grouped themselves into that magnificent galaxy of intel- 
lects which is one of the glories of the early Church. We 
need but mention a Justin, an Athenagoras, a Theophilus, 
a Tertullian, a Clement of Alexandria, an Arnobius, a Lac- 
tantius, an Augustine — converts, all of them, from the 
false philosophies of the age. Whoever is disposed to be- 
little the authority of such names as these has much to 
learn about the history of the human intellect. St. Au- 
gustine alone, in point of keenness and depth of philosophi- 
cal insight, might be weighed against a score of intellectual 
worthies of the past century ; and St. Augustine believed in 
the divinity of Christ. 



76 Christ ^s Divinity 

But, it may be objected, are you not forgetting some of 
the intellectual features of the age — its advances in physical 
science, for instance ? 

No, we are not forgetting the progress made in physical 
science, but the bearing of physical science on the question 
of Christ's divinity is anything but manifest. Science has 
been cited as a witness against Christ 's miracles and against 
miracles in general, but, as the reader may see from the ar- 
ticle entitled ''Miracles," the witness breaks down under 
a little cross-examination. As to Christ's miracles in par- 
ticular we hope the skeptical reader will receive some en- 
lightenment from the present discussion. 

One fact must be patent to any one who is at all ac- 
quainted with modern thought ; to wit, that after centuries 
of criticism the life of Jesus of Nazareth still remains the 
one great fact of history in the presence of which all others 
sink into comparative insignificance. A few representative 
quotations from eminent writers of the nineteenth century 
will amply bear out the assertion. 

Goethe is quoted by Professor Harnack as saying: **Let 
intellectual and spiritual culture progress and the human 
mind expand as much as it will — beyond the grandeur and 
the moral elevation of Christianity, as it sparkles and shines 
in the Gospels [i.e., in the life of Christ] the human mind 
will not advance." — ''In these words," remarks Professor 
Harnack, "Goethe, after making many experiments and 
laboring indefatigably at himself, summed up the result 
to which his moral and historical insight had led him." — 
What is Christianity? p. 4. 

Professor Harnack adds in his own name to Goethe's 
testimony: "The message brought [by Jesus Christ] was 
of the profoundest and most comprehensive character; it 
went to the very root of mankind, and, although set in the 
framework of the Jewish nation, it addressed itself to the 
whole of humanity — the message from God the Father. 
Defective it is not, and its real kernel may be readily freed 
from the inevitable husk of contemporary form. Anti- 
quated it is not, and in life and strength it still triumphs 
to-day over all the past. He who delivered it has as yet 
yielded His place to no man, and to human life He still 
to-day gives a meaning and an aim — He the Son of God" 
— Ihid., p. 130. The italics are Harnack 's. 

Renan thus apostrophizes Jesus of Nazareth: "A thou- 



Christ's Divinity 77 

sand times more living, a thousand times more loved, since 
Thy death than during the days of Thy passage here below, 
Thou shalt so truly become the corner-stone of humanity 
that to blot Thy name out of this world would be to shake 
the world to its foundations. Between Thee and God men 
will no longer distinguish. Complete vanquisher of death, 
take possession of Thy kingdom, whither Thou shalt be fol- 
lowed, over the royal road which Thou hast traced, by gen- 
erations of adorers." — Vie de Jesus, p. 297. 

The closing passage of the same work runs thus: ''What- 
ever unexpected events the future may have in store, Jesus 
will never be surpassed. His worship will renew its youth 
incessantly; His legend will never cease to draw tears; 
His sufferings will melt all better hearts ; every generation 
will proclaim that amongst all the children of men none 
have been greater than Jesus." 

It is difficult to realize that the writers of the above 
words were not believers in the Godhead of Jesus. Their, 
utterances, nevertheless, though they can not be quoted as 
direct tributes to the divinity of Christ, have a controver- 
sial value to the believer in His divinity which can not be 
overrated. They testify to the sublimity of the moral char- 
acter of the Saviour, and to the no less sublime mission 
with which He was entrusted by God. 

Now such being the character and mission of Jesus of 
Nazareth, His own testimony regarding Himself is of the 
first importance. If He testifies to His own divinity and 
if, moreover. His testimony is confirmed by miracles, there 
is no resisting the conclusion that He was, in the extremest 
Catholic sense of the words, the Son of God. 

II. — THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST ^S DIVINITY TAUGHT BY HIMSELF 

One who professes to be a messenger from God and is 
proved to be such by testimony from on high can not be the 
bearer of a false message. God is not a deceiver, either 
in Himself or in His messengers. Now God has so ordered 
events that we possess a superabundance of evidence that 
Jesus was such an accredited messenger from Heaven. But 
it is equally evident that a part of His message to mankind 
was the truth of His divinity. We shall prove, in the first 
place, that He was a Messenger from God — indeed no less 
than the Messias expected by the Jews — and in the second 
place that He taught the doctrine of His divinity. 



78 Christ ^s Divinity 

The facts upon which this demonstration will rest will be 
taken mostly from the Gospels, and the Gospels we assume 
to be authentic narratives. Our modern criticism has con- 
fessed its inability to get rid of the first three Gospels as 
genuine and authentic documents. The Gospel of St. John 
they call in question, although it has been acknowledged in 
the Church since the very earliest centuries. But let them 
discount or reason away the fourth Gospel as much as they 
are inclined — there will be testimony enough and to spare 
for our purpose in the first three; and this will be abun- 
dantly confirmed by the witness of the other books of the 
New Testament. 

His Words and Works. — The public life of Our Lord, 
lasting three years, fairly teemed with miracles and prophe- 
cies. The sacred writers narrated them without any cere- 
mony and as though they were a matter of course. It was 
arranged by Providence that Our Lord should appear on 
earth at a time when written records could be given a wide 
circulation, though indeed many of the sacred writings were 
published at a time when numerous witnesses of the mira- 
cles were still living. As regards the events themselves, 
nothing was done in a corner. The world flocked to see 
what any one might see at any hour of the day during 
three long years. Few persons have had the hardihood 
even to think that there did not appear in the world a man 
called Jesus of Nazareth whose life was an extraordinary 
tissue of wondrous deeds. 

Attracted hy His fame, let us follow the crowds that pour 
forth from the towns and villages, and see for ourselves 
what manner of man He is. We find we are as much 
taken by Himself as by His miracles. '*A man of God," 
we say, ''if ever there was one." Notwithstanding His 
extraordinary deeds He is meek and humble of heart. Far 
from being above the law, He observes it with scrupulous 
exactness. His words breathe a heavenly wisdom such as 
has never been heard in the synagogues. His whole bear- 
ing betokens a holiness of life without flaw or imperfec- 
tion ; a holiness nurtured from the interior and making no 
account of soulless forms. 

His wisdom, His holiness, and His miracles combined 
send a thrill of admiration through the multitudes. 
"Blessed is the womb that bore Thee and the paps that 
gave Thee suck." Such is the cry of those whose hearts 



Christ's Diviyiity 79 

are well disposed; but even His enemies are filled with 
astonishment at the wisdom of His words. "Never did 
man speak like to this man," is the answer which those 
who have been sent to seize Him and drag Him before the 
magistrates give to their masters. 

But evidently He has been sent not only to edify and 
enlighten. He has a mission of a very special kind. He is 
sent to bring tidings of salvation, not only to His own peo- 
ple, but also to the Gentiles. There should be no reason for 
surprise if a messenger from God should appear at this time 
and in this country. The Jews are expecting their Messias, 
to whose coming prophecy after prophecy has taught them 
to look forward. Even the Samaritan woman gives expres- 
sion to the general expectation : " I know that the Messias 
cometh . . . when He cometh He will tell us all things." 

Indeed, the Lord frequently declares that He is the Mes- 
sias. This He explicitly tells the Samaritan woman (John 
iv. 26) . He says the same by implication to those who have 
been sent by the Baptist to learn whether He is the one 
who is to come: "Go and relate to John what you have 
heard and seen : the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are 
made clean, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, to the poor 
the Gospel is preached" (Luke vii. 22) ; meaning that the 
evidence is overwhelming that He has been sent from on 
high. Again, by applying the words of the Prophet Mala- 
chy to John, who He says is "more than a prophet," He 
declares him the forerunner of Himself as Messias: "Be- 
hold I send My angel before Thy face, who shall prepare 
Thy way before Thee" (Luke vii. 27). 

To the direct and open confession of Peter, "Thou art 
the Christ [i.e., the Messias], the Son of the living God." 
Jesus answers: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona; be- 
cause flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My 
Father who is in heaven" (Matt. x\d. 16, 17). When the 
Jews gather about Him and urge Him to tell them plainly 
if He be the Messias, His answer is: "I speak to you and 
you believe not. The works that I do in the name of My 
Father, they give testimony of Me" (John x. 24, 25). At 
His last supper, just before His passion, He proclaims 
openly : ' ' This is eternal life : That they may know Thee, 
the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent," 
— i.e., Jesus the Messias, as "Christ" and "Messias" have 
the same meaning (John xvii. 3). When asked by the 



I 



80 Christ's Divinity 

high-priest, ''Art Thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed 
God?" He answers and says to him, ''I am" (Mark xiv. 
61,62). 

How is it possible to make light of the assertions of a 
man of such transcendent wisdom and holiness? If His 
claim is not admitted the only possible ground for reject- 
ing it is that whilst He was sincere He was deceived and 
under an illusion. But the victims of an illusion are sooner 
or later discovered to be such. Poor human nature can not 
hide its moral or intellectual distempers long. Mental dis- 
tortion could not long be concealed in the case of one who 
professed to have a mission like that of Our Lord. He would 
surely do something extravagant or something disedifying. 
He would be found uttering prophecies which were not to 
be fulfilled. As likely as not he would exhibit pride of 
intellect, or even an independence of the law. But symp- 
toms of illusion in the case of Jesus of Nazareth are almost 
unthinkable. 

Still, it was to be expected that if He was sent by God, 
God would find a means of accrediting His mission in the 
minds of the people. And testimony from on high was by 
no means wanting. At His baptism in the Jordan a voice 
from heaven was heard, saying : ' * This is My beloved Son, 
in whom I am well pleased" (Matt. iii. 17). In like man- 
ner, at the Transfiguration, from out the cloud that over- 
shadowed the three disciples were heard the words : * ' This 
is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye 
Him" (Matt. xvii. 5; 2 Peter i. 17). 

But this divine confirmation of His authority was not the 
only ratification of His claim to being the Messias. To this 
direct commendation of Him from above was added a dis- 
play of miraculous powers of the most astounding kind — 
and to this He Himself appealed. Miracles almost flowed 
from His hands. Multitudes of the sick, including the pal- 
sied and the leprous, and of the blind, the deaf and the 
mute, cripples and paralytics, came to Him, or were carried 
to Him, and were cured in an instant. Not unfrequently 
they were cured at a distance — simply by His willing it. 
He even brought the dead back to life, as in the case of the 
son of the widow of Naim, and in that of His friend Laza- 
rus, who had been dead four days and was already putrid. 

He showed himself master of inanimate nature. He 
calmed the winds, walked upon the waters of a lake as 



Christ ^s Divinity 81 

though He were walking on the hard ground, changed water 
into wine, multiplied five barley -loaves and two small fishes 
so as to be able to feed more than five thousand persons and 
leave twelve basketfuls of fragments after all were satisfied. 
He expelled devils from the bodies of the possessed; and 
the devils, as they fled from their victims, were forced to 
acknowledge His mission from on high. **And the devils 
went out of many, crying out and saying, Thou art the Son 
of God. And He, rebuking them, suffered them not to 
speak: for they knew that He was the Christ" (Luke 
iv.41). 

Miracles such as these were witnessed daily, hourly, dur- 
ing a period of three years. They were wrought in many 
cases in the presence of vast crowds and under every con- 
ceivable variety of circumstances. "And much people fol- 
lowed Him from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from 
Jerusalem, and from Judea, and from beyond the Jordan. ' ' 
— "And His fame went throughout all Syria" (Matt. iv. 
25, 24). 

Akin to His strictly miraculous powers was His gift of 
prophecy, under which head we include His knowledge of 
the secrets of the heart and of things beyond the reach of 
His senses. To Nathanael, when he was brought to the 
Lord by Philip, He described the incidents preceding his 
coming, and showed such a knowledge of him without hav- 
ing seen him before that Nathanael at once gave utterance 
to a fervent act of faith. He foretold that Peter would find 
a coin, wherewith to pay the tribute, in the mouth of a 
fish which He bade him draw from the sea. He predicted 
the treason of Judas, of whose treachery no one else had the 
smallest suspicion, and the triple denial of Peter, who was 
the loudest in his profession of loyalty. Meeting a Sa- 
maritan woman at a well. He tells her, to her utter astonish- 
ment, the story of her sinful life. 

He foretells that He will be delivered for condemnation 
and crucifixion to the heathen, that He will be mocked and 
scourged and finally crucified, but that on the third day 
after His burial He will rise from the dead. We shall see 
later how the prediction of His resurrection was fulfilled. 
He prophesied the descent of the Holy Ghost upon His 
apostles — a prophecy which was so wonderfully fulfilled 
on the day of Pentecost. The transference of the kingdom 
of God to the Gentiles, the preaching of the Gospel through- 



82 Christ's Divinity 

out the world ; the endurance of the Church under the fierc- 
est persecution, a prophecy that has been verified duriog 
nineteen centuries ; the circumstances of the destruction of 
Jerusalem and the total and permanent dispersion of the 
Jewish people — all these events were the object of clear and 
distinct prophecies. 

None of these predictions could have been the result of 
mere human foresight. That a handful of Galilean fisher- 
men were destined to make conquest of a world could never 
have entered into men's dreams. That an institution of 
such humble beginnings as the Church, wielding none but 
spiritual arms and preaching a crucified God, should win 
the allegiance of the great and the learned and the powerful 
of every age and country, could never have been foreseen 
save by one who was supernaturally and wonderfully in- 
spired. As to the destruction of Jerusalem and the utter 
dispersion of the Jewish race, no mere shrewdness in read- 
ing the signs of the times could have enabled any one to 
present such a picture of desolation, particularly in its spe- 
cific features, as Our Lord sketched in connection with these 
two events. The absolute dispersion of a vanquished peo- 
ple is an anomaly in history, as conquered nations have in 
all other cases been amalgamated with their conquerors. 

Can there be any doubt in the mind of any reader of this 
book of the reality of these wonderful occurrences? Can 
there be any doubt of the trustworthiness of the Gospel nar- 
ratives, which were published within the lifetime of very 
many witnesses of the public career of Our Lord? The 
first two Gospels were issued to the world before thousands 
of young men who had seen and heard the Lord had yet 
reached middle age. Had these first readers of Matthew 
and Mark seen in the Gospels an old legend which no one 
could verify and which might well be supposed to contain 
the accumulated fabrications of the ages, they would have 
paused — even the most credulous of them — before accept- 
ing stories which were almost one tissue of miraculous 
events. But many of these events they had witnessed them- 
selves, and the rest they were not surprised to see narrated 
in script by those who professed to have witnessed them all. 

The age could not have been imposed upon by a false ac- 
count of events of such recent occurrence. As well might 
we suppose that the hundreds of thousands of persons to- 



Christ's Divinity 83 

day who remember our Civil War would accept accounts 
of miraculous events accompanying the campaigns of 
Grant, or of Sherman, or of McClellan. Any historian of 
the war who should indulge in such fancies would be re- 
garded as demented. But the writers of the Gospels feared 
no such reception for their narratives. Many of their 
readers had been witnesses of what was narrated ; nay, 
many of them, doubtless, who had once been palsied, or 
crippled, or blind, had benefited by the exercise of His mir- 
aculous power. Xo one who realizes all this can have any 
doubt that the life of Jesus of Nazareth fairly teemed with 
miracles and that He wielded the powers of the universe 
with such sovereign mastery as to prove either that He 
was God or the One sent of God, the Expected of Nations. 
It is with this latter alternative, that He was the Ex- 
pected of Nations, the Messias. that we are just here con- 
cerned ; the more so as it was to His miracles that he prin- 
cipally appealed in declaring Himself the Messias. The 
argument was irresistible. If such multiplied marks of 
divine approbation accompanied His asseveration that He 
was the ;^[essias, the conclusion was inevitable that He was 
in very truth the Messias. For the Jews there was no loop- 
hole of escape from this conclusion except the theory that 
His miracles were performed by the aid of Beelzebub. But 
this objection He abundantly refuted. It was absurd. He 
told them, that Beelzebub should help Him to drive his own 
minions out of the bodies of the possessed. ' ' If Satan . . . 
be divided against himself how shall his kingdom stand t 
. . . But if I by the finger of God cast out devils, doubt- 
less the kingdom of God is come upon vou" (Luke xi. 
18. 20). 

To any one, then, who believed in a God who would not 
lead His people into error, or allow them to be deceived by 
false signs of di\dne favor, the events which had happened 
could have but one meaning; the kingdom of God had in- 
deed come upon them ; Jesus was the Messias : His word was 
the word of God ; His teaching about Himself, whatever it 
might be, would be infallible. And we shall see that a 
prominent point of His teaching about Himself was that 
He was the eternal Son of God. equal to the Father — or, 
in other words. God made man. 

But the greatest of Our Lord's miracles remains yet to be 



84 Christ's Divinity 

considered; to wit, His Resurrection, a miracle to which 
He Himself appealed by anticipation. To those who had 
insincerely sought of Him a sign or miracle that should 
satisfy their skepticism He answered that no sign would 
be given them but that of Jonas, who after being buried 
three days in the body of a whale «ame forth alive. His 
reference was to His Resurrection. His death seeming to 
many to prove the falsity of His claims. His Resurrection 
was needed to reestablish His authority. 

Here again Providence had arranged for a triumph over 
human incredulity. His sepulcher situated in a public 
place, the sealed stone rolled against the entrance, the 
strong guard placed about the tomb by Pilate, and the 
still stronger guard consisting of the host of Christ *s re- 
lentless enemies — and then, on the day predicted, the empty 
tomb, with the grave-cloths laid carefully by and folded, 
thus indicating the improbability of a hasty and stealthy 
removal of His body by His friends, and finally the nu- 
merous circumstantial accounts of apparitions, some of 
them to single individuals, others to groups large and small, 
at intervals during no less than forty days, the various nar- 
ratives being characterized by a sincerity which is so dis- 
tinctive of the sacred writings of the chosen people and of 
their successors in the Faith, the early Christians — all these 
circumstances combined furnish a body of evidence from 
which no sincere skeptic, it should seem, can find an escape. 

And yet some of our ''higher critics," among other triv- 
ial objections to the Resurrection, are found to urge as 
a reason for rejecting the great truth the seeming impos- 
sibility of making out of the Gospel narratives a clear story 
in which every small detail shall be made to fit into its place 
and help to interpret the others. There is indeed some ob- 
scurity as regards the less important circumstances ; but is 
that sufficient reason for rejecting the whole history, which 
is so clear and full and convincing as regards the main 
issue ? In the case of every such series of events it is dif- 
ficult to make the accounts of many independent witnesses 
agree in each small detail. In the case of our great Battle 
of Gettysburg, which was a three days' contest waged by 
two large armies over a wide extent of ground, we are not 
surprised at experiencing some difficulty in bringing into 
harmony the various printed accounts of the battle that 



Christ *s Divinity 85 

are now extant; and yet they all witness to a great battle 
fought at Gettysburg. 

Let any one read, one after the other, the four Gospel 
accounts of the Resurrection and the events that followed 
it, and then ask himself: Can all this be fiction? The in- 
vention of it would have been the next greatest wonder to 
the Resurrection itself. 

We have nothing to say here to the atheist or to the 
agnostic or to disbelievers in the supernatural generally. 
We must refer them to other articles in this little work, 
e.g., ''God's Existence," ''Agnosticism," "Miracles." We 
are appealing to those who believe that earth's happenings 
are under a Providence, which, we maintain, would never 
have permitted the drama in which Jesus of Nazareth was 
the principal figure to be enacted without its having the 
meaning which we and all other Christians ascribe to it. 
Neither are we concerned just here with certain recent at- 
tempts at explaining the miracles of Jesus as purely natural 
though extraordinary phenomena. We shall cast a glance 
at these at the close of the article. 

To the honest skeptic we would say : Give a fair examina- 
tion to the facts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Don't 
read disquisitions on the Gospels, but read the Gospels 
themselves, one after the other ; and then, especially if you 
can make yourself acquainted with such parts of the Old 
Testament as will enable you to see the life of Jesus against 
its background of sacred history and prophecy, you will 
at least be convinced that there are some things in heaven 
and earth — pardon the expression — not dreamed of in your 
negative philosophy. And now let us hasten to the second 
part of our inquiry. 

Did Jesus Himself teach the doctrine of* His Godhead? 

He. not only taught it but inculcated it. The Gospels 
abound in utterances of His which were understood both 
by His friends and by His enemies as pointing to His di- 
vinity. There is not, it is true, any such explicit statement 
as, "I am the Lord God, the Maker of heaven and earth ' ' ; 
but His reasons for withholding so plain an assertion of 
the truth, though hidden in the divine counsels, are perhaps 
not entirely beyond the reach of human conjecture. Com- 
ing in the guise of a human teacher and speaking in human 
accents to human minds and hearts, He knew that His di- 
vinity must be made gradually to dawn upon those human 



86 Christ's Divinity 

minds and to penetrate insensibly into well-disposed human 
hearts. He must first convince them of His mission from 
on high, and then of His sonship in respect to God ; and fi- 
nally He must imply in many different forms of expres- 
sion His equality and identity with God. This gradual but 
effective process we may say without presumption was 
worthy of Him who was and is the wisdom of the Father. 
From the beginning He spoke as one having power. He was 
listened to as a teacher of transcendent authority. ** Never 
did man speak like this man," was the testimony of his 
enemies. His words indeed fell upon the ears of the envious 
and narrow-minded scribes and Pharisees as good seed falls 
upon bad soil ; but in the humble and the open-minded they 
produced a belief in the Saviour which finally culminated 
in the wholehearted declaration of St. Peter: *'Thou art 
the Christ, the Son of the living God," and the even more 
explicit profession of faith of* St. Thomas : * ' My Lord and 
my God." 

We shall now quote a number of Our Lord's utterances 
bearing on His divinity. Any attempt to explain them 
except by the doctrine of the divinity will land us between 
the horns of a dilemma. For if Our Lord did not mean to 
teach the doctrine of His divinity He ran the greatest pos- 
sible risk of leading the people into idolatry, for He said 
everything short of asserting, "I am God." But as it was 
impossible for one of His transcendent holiness to lead the 
people into idolatry. He must have meant what He seemed 
to imply by His words. Even such declarations as the 
following would have had a seductive effect if uttered by 
any one who was not divine : **I am the way, the truth, and 
the life" (John xiv. 6); "I am the vine, ye are the 
branches" (John xv. 5) ; ''Without Me you can do noth- 
ing" (John XV. 5). 

And yet these are not the strongest expressions bearing 
on the divinity. Let us reflect for a moment on the signifi- 
cance of the following: ''The Son of man is Lord even of 
the sabbath" (Matt. xii. 18); ''What things soever [the 
Father] doth, these the Son also doth in like manner" 
(John V. 19) ; "As the Father raiseth up the dead and 
giveth life, so the Son also giveth life to whom He will" 
(John V. 21) ; "That all men may honor the Son as they 
honor the Father" (John v. 23). Let us endeavor to real- 
ize the effect of these words on the devoted followers of 



Christ ^s Divinity 87 

Our Lord. Could they have thought Him less than God 
when He laid claim to the same honor as the Father ? And 
if He was not God they were led into idolatry. 

When the high-priest adjured Him by the living God 
to declare if He were ''the Christ, the Son of God," His 
answer was, ''Thou hast said it," — a form of expression 
which was equivalent here to, "Yes, I am the Christ, the 
Son of God." And so His words were understood by the 
high-priest, who, rending his garments, exclaimed: "He 
hath blasphemed: what further need have we of wit- 
nesses?" (Matt. xxvi. 63-65). Why "blasphemed," unless 
He was supposed to have insulted God by an assumption of 
divinity? To have claimed the Messiasship alone would 
not have been deemed blasphemy ; but to have called Him- 
self the Son of God was enough to create a plausible ground 
for accusing Him of blasphemy. The accusation was the 
same as that made on so many other occasions, and on the 
same grounds: He had called God His Father, and thus 
made Himself equal to God (John v. 18 ; x. 30, 33 ; xix. 7). 
But He takes no pains to explain His words and give them 
a milder meaning than had been conveyed to His hearers. 
He abides by His assertion and suffers death in conse- 
quence. And yet He was speaking before the most sacred 
tribunal of His nation, which He respected as representing 
the authority of God Himself, and hence must have felt 
conscious of His obligation to correct any false interpreta- 
tion of His words. We must, therefore, conclude that there 
was nothing to correct: He was in very truth the eternal 
Son of God and equal to the Father. 

The conclusion we have drawn from the declaration made 
by Our Lord before the high-priest derives no little con- 
firmation from a notable profession of faith made by St. 
Peter. The Lord had asked the disciples, ' ' Whom do men 
say that the Son of man is?" And they answered Him: 
' ' Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others 
Jeremias, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them : But 
whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and 
said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And 
Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon 
Bar-Jona; because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to 
thee, but My Father who is in heaven" (Matt. xvi. 13-17). 
It must be noted, in the first place, that the appellation 
"son of God" was, in accordance with Hebrew usage, often 



88 Christ's Divinity 

given to persons specially favored by God and to the 
anointed kings of Israel ; but in the above passage the defi- 
nite article the must denote a special and exclusive rela- 
tion between the Son and the Father. Then, too, the solenm 
scriptural phrase "the living God" seems to indicate the 
speaker's awful sense of the dignity of that sonship which 
he was ascribing to his Master. Hence we are not surprised 
at the solemnity with which the Master congratulates Peter : 
"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona; because flesh and 
blood [i.e., human wisdom or experience] hath not revealed 
it to thee, but My Father who is in heaven." Special en- 
lightenment from on high was needed for the learning of 
so sublime a truth. To be the eternal Son of God was in- 
finitely greater than to be the Messias. A knowledge of the 
latter dignity was open to those who witnessed His won- 
drous works, to which He Himself appealed when ques- 
tioned by the messengers of the Baptist ; but to know that 
He was the eternal Son of God was a favor due to special 
divine tuition. 

Those who were the recipients of this favor were indeed 
to be congratulated on having understood the Scriptures, 
which to others were, in regard to this truth, a sealed book. 
For had not Isaias foretold in words that were understood 
as relating to the Messias : ' ' For a child is bom to us, and 
a son is given to us, and the government is upon His shoul- 
der: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, 
God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince 
of Peace"? (ix. 6). 

But apart from these special events which we have been 
noticing, the extraordinary way in which He habitually 
spoke of His relations with His Father tended to create 
a belief in His divinity. His mode of speaking in this con- 
nection, if used by any one else, and in the ordinary inter- 
course of life, would imply that in the speaker's mind the 
term "Father" was understood in the strictest and most 
literal sense. And again, supposing He were the Messias 
without being God — great indeed, but still standing at an 
infinite distance from God. He would never have pre- 
sumed to use such language in reference to Himself and 
God. 

The quotations that follow prove, each and all, that the 
sonship of which Our Lord speaks is a natural one; but a 



Christ ^s Divinity 89 

natural relationship with God necessarily implies an iden- 
tity in nature with Him. 

^^All things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine" (John 
xvi. 15). *^What things soever [the Father] doth, these 
the Son also doth in like manner" (John v. 19). 

* ' I and the Father are one. " " That you may know and 
believe that the Father is in Me and 1 in the Father" (John 
X. 30, 38). 

**I speak that which I have seen with My Father" (John 
viii. 38). — ''With" here means the same as apud in Latin, 
i.e., "in the company, or in the house, of." The signifi- 
cance of this particle cannot be overrated: it indicates an 
eternal abiding with the Father. 

* ' All things are delivered to Me by My Father ; and no 
one knoweth who the Son is, but the Father ; and who the 
Father is, but the Son; and to whom the Son will reveal 
[Him]" (Luke x. 22). 

"Did you not know," He said to His mother and His 
foster-father when they found Him with the doctors in the 
Temple, "that I must be about My Father's business?" 
(Luke ii. 49.) 

The climax is reached in this species of testimony when 
Our Lord relates the parable of the wicked husbandmen. 
It is given in the three synoptic Gospels (Luke xx. ; Mark 
xii. ; Matt. xxi. ) . When the master of the vineyard had 
sent one servant after another to receive the fruits of the 
vineyard, and the servants had been either killed or maimed 
by the husbandmen, he said : " I will send my beloved son. 
It may be, when they see him they will reverence him." 
But, quite the contrary, they fell upon the son, saying: 
^'This is the heir — let us kill him, that the inheritance may 
be ours. ' ' Our Lord makes it plain in the context that the 
son in the parable is Himself, and the husbandmen the 
Jews, who are to put Him to death. The parable would 
have no meaning if Jesus were not the only -begotten Son, 
possessing the same divine nature as the Father. 

Finally, we have the two striking passages in which Our 
Lord proclaims, in the one indirectly, in the other di- 
rectly, the eternity of His being. ' ' You sent to John, ' * He 
once said to His enemies, "and he gave testimony to the 
truth" (John v. 33). He therefore appeals to the testi- 
mony of John. Let us then turn to the words of the Bap- 
tist: "This is He of whom I said: After me there cometh 



90 Christ *s Divinity 

a man who is preferred before me, because He was before 
me'* — that is to say, existed before me. But as he had not 
existed before him in time, having been born after him, 
He must have existed before him in eternity. Who and 
what He was in His eternal existence is set forth in the con- 
cluding words of St. John 's testimony : * ' And I saw, and I 
gave testimony, that this is the Son of God" (John i. 30, 
34). 

Speaking to His enemies on another occasion, He said: 
** Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see My day : 
he saw it and was glad." The Jews therefore said to Him : 
*'Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abra- 
ham?" Jesus said to them: *'Amen, amen, I say to you, 
before Abraham was made, / am." There is no parallel 
to this in human language. The Jews might have expected 
Him to say "I was," instead of "I am"; but "I was" 
could not have expressed the eternity of His being, which 
is one indi\asible present, without past or future. Again, 
therefore, He thought it not robbery to be equal to God, 
to that God who, when Moses asked Him what answer he 
should make the people if they should ask him the name of 
the God who was sending him, said to Moses, ''I am who 
am. . . . Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel : He 
who is hath sent me to you : " or, as rendered more exactly 
from the Hebrew, '^I am hath sent me to you." Eternal 
Being is His very essence. But even though He had said, 
**I was" instead of "I am," He would have indicated His 
divine life in eternity before either He or John had come 
upon earth. 

And now we are prepared for the full and explicit con- 
fession of St. Thomas the apostle : ^^My Lord and my God,** 
We may now say without presumption that our thesis is 
proved : Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias, and therefore 
His teaching was the truth ; but part of that teaching was 
that He was God ; therefore He was God. 

And yet we have not finished. We have been dealing 
with the direct utterances of the Master; we have yet to 
see the meaning of His words brought out in the clearest 
and most explicit terms by His apostles, who were His ac- 
credited representatives — to whom He had given the com- 
mission to teach in His name — * * Going, therefore, teach all 
nations" — to whom He had given the promise, ''Behold, I 
am with you all days, even to the consummation of the 



Christ *s Divinity 91 

world*' — and upon whose teaching He had promised to put 
the seal of miracles — a promise which was abundantly ful- 
fiUed. 

What do the apostles teach ahout the divinity of Christ? 

St. Peter, the Prince of the apostles, begins his Second 
Epistle with these words : * ' Simon Peter, servant and apos- 
tle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained equal faith 
with us in the justice of our God and Saviour Jesus 
Christ." 

St. John, in his First Epistle, v. 20, writes thus: **And 
we know that the Son of God is come : and He hath given 
us understanding, that we may know the true God and 
may be in His true Son. This is the true God, and life eter- 
nal.' ' **This," in the last sentence is equivalent to an 
emphatic ' ' He, ' ' referring to ' ' true Son, ' ' who is here de- 
scribed as the true God and life eternal. The expression 
"His true Son" would alone be convincing. 

St. Paul, who was taught by God Himself, but whose 
teachings were guaranteed to the faithful by the apostles 
as well as by his own miracles, says of Jesus: ''Who, being 
in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with 
God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, 
being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a 
man" (Philipp. ii. 6, 7). No mere mortal could think it no 
robbery to be equal to God ; and if Jesus thought it no rob- 
bery it was because He was very God. Being in the form, 
i.e., having the nature of God, He emptied Himself, not by 
divesting Himself of His divine nature, but by taking to 
Himself our human nature. 

Again St. Paul, writing to the Colossians (i. 15-17), says: 
**Who [i.e., the Son] is the image of the invisible God, the 
firstborn of every creature ; for in Him were all things cre- 
ated in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether 
thrones or dominations or principalities or powers: all 
things were created by Him and in Him. And He is be- 
fore all, and by Him all things consist." By "firstborn of 
every creature" is to be understood, not born into this 
world the first of all creatures, but first generated, or 
eternally generated, and before all creatures ; primogenitus 
omnis creaturae, as the Latin Vulgate has it. This is im- 
plied in the succeeding clauses, which plainly describe Him 
as the Creator and Preserver of all things, and therefore as 
the Sovereign God. 



92 Christ's Divinity 

It is not surprising, then, that St. John should bear wit- 
ness to the same sublime truth. The first chapter of his 
Gospel begins with these words : ' ' In the beginning was the 
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was 
God.*' It is of the Word that he says a little further on that 
He "was made flesh and dwelt among us." 

The last-mentioned enunciation of the great truth needs 
no comment, except, perhaps, in reference to a modern criti- 
cism to the effect that the writer of the Gospel, in speaking 
of the Word, has appropriated the language and the 
thought of a philosophy which had some vogue at the time 
when the fourth Gospel was written — the system of Philo 
Judaeus — and that, consequently, no little suspicion is cast 
upon the genuineness of the Gospel attributed to St. John. 
Much has been written in refutation of this position, but 
the better part of it may perhaps be summed up in these few 
words: First, the Word as conceived by Philo was not 
identical with the conception of St. John. It (or he) was 
an inferior being, in nowise identical with the divine Es- 
sence ; whereas according to St. John ''the Word was God." 
Second, even on the supposition that the writer of the Gos- 
pel adopted the language of the philosopher, he employed 
it in the service of truth. St. John had discovered the true 
Word, of whom an imperfect notion had been conceived by 
the philosopher. He had learned to know the Word who is 
the Wisdom of the Father and who is one with Him in 
nature (see "Development of Doctrine" and "Dogmas"). 

The teaching of St. Paul in the ninth chapter of his Epis- 
tle to the Romans, verse 5, is no less explicit than that of 
St. John. "Of whom [the Israelites] ," he says, "is Christ, 
according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed 
forever. ' * 

III — A MODERN EXPLANATION OF CHRIST ^S MIRACLES 

We have said that the question of Our Lord 's miracles is 
not affected by any of the real achievements of the science 
of the day ; but it is one of the peculiarities of the age that 
there are a number of half-fledged sciences whose cultiva- 
tors are indeed occupying a legitimate field of research but 
are, some of them at least, governed by anything but a 
scientific spirit. Over-confidence of assertion, and even of 
prediction, is their characteristic note. Prominent among 
these latter-day sciences is one that may be called the sci- 



Christ's Divinity 93 

ence of mind influence. It investigates, among other things, 
the influence of mind upon matter. A certain number of 
facts are adduced to prove that mind produces effects upon 
human organisms hitherto thought impossible. Extremists 
in this line of investigation go so far as to say that all sup- 
posed miraculous cures are due entirely to the influence of 
mind upon matter, that they are purely natural effects pro- 
duced by natural causes, that they are the work of man 
and nature, and not of God. 

Our Lord's miracles are explained by some members of 
this school as having been due to what is technically called 
suggestion. What is suggestion? Suggestion is the em- 
ployment of any means other than reasoning or the ordi- 
nary arts of persuasion ; as for instance, the enunciation of 
a word or a sentence, or the use of a sign, a look, or an at- 
titude, in order to induce in another a desired state of 
mind. It is a species of personal influence, or of personal 
magnetism, in the more popular sense of the word. In the 
degree in which a person is open to any such influence he 
is said to be suggestible. The quality varies with the in- 
dividual, and some have it in a very abnormal degree. In 
the case of supposed miraculous cures, we are told, the ef- 
fect may really be produced; the blind may be made to 
see and the lame to walk, but the effect is due to sugges- 
tion. In the case of Our Lord's miracles the spell of His 
presence and the power of His words induced a state of in- 
tense belief in the sufferers ; so intense indeed as to work a 
cure in the affected organ. It was the intense faith of the 
sufferer that straightened out his distorted limbs, or mended 
his broken bones, or flooded his sightless eyeballs with light ! 

** Wonderful!" exclaims some innocent reader. ''In- 
credible ! ' ' Wonderful, if you choose, replies the would-be 
scientist, but not incredible ; the thing can be done, because 
it has been done. And accordingly, a certain number of 
facts, more or less accurately reported, are brought for- 
ward as proving that states of mind may be made to pro- 
duce extraordinary states of body. A certain class of fact;^ 
that have been casually and somewhat frequently observed 
is first adduced in evidence. The following, for example : 
A man is knocked down by a passing cart. In his fright 
he fancies that a wheel has passed over one of his arms and 
crushed it, whereas it has only grazed it. On rising to his 
feet, however, he finds that his arm is paralyzed. Here a 



94 Christ's Divinity 

frightened state of mind lias inflicted a serious injury upon 
his body. 

But this is mild compared with other alleged facts. It 
is asserted, for instance, that persons in a hypnotic state 
may be made, through the medium of suggestion, to experi- 
ence certain pathological conditions of the body foreseen 
and predicted by the operator. "We are told that in one case 
at least a hypnotic subject has been told that on a certain 
day and at a certain hour he would find upon his arm sores 
or scars having a certain shape and spelling certain words 
and that the prediction was verified. 

On the basis of a few such facts, real or supposed, it is 
argued that if mere states of mind are known to have pro- 
duced such effects upon the body, we are not warranted in 
placing any limit to the influence of mind upon matter. 
Why may not the reputed miraculous cures wrought by 
Christ have been directly produced by the faith of the suf- 
ferer and not by any supernatural power possessed by his 
healer ? 

This question we shall endeavor to answer. In the first 
place, soul and body are so intimately united that it is not 
surprising that the one should influence the other; nor 
would it be surprising to learn that the mind can exercise 
a much greater influence over the body than has been gen- 
erally supposed. But what are the facts of the case ? We 
are confronted with an embryo science which has noted, in 
some cases with the simplest credulity, a certain number of 
facts, very few of which have been subjected to rigid scien- 
tific scrutiny. And the more significant of the incidents 
reported have happened in the case of persons in most ab- 
normal states of mind or body. Are we to suppose that the 
persons cured iDy Our Lord were hypnotics? Considering 
the vast number cured, are we not to suppose that they pre- 
sented about the average of psychic susceptibility? Ex- 
traordinary psychic phenomena occur under extraordinary 
psychic conditions. Are we to suppose that the hundreds, 
perhaps thousands, who were so wondrously healed sup- 
plied such extraordinary conditions? And yet we never 
hear of any being turned away £is unfit subjects. 

It must be noted, in the next place, that some of Our 
Lord's cures were wrought upon persons at a distance — 
notably in the case of the son of the ruler of Capharnaum. 
Even admitting the power of suggestion, can its power be 



Christ's Divinity 95 

exercised without any communication between the two per- 
sons concerned ? We hear, it is true, not a little nowadays 
of mind influencing mind without any observable medium 
of cormnunication. Telepathy is one of the magic words of 
the hour ; but a little investigation will show that from a 
scientific standpoint it is little more than a word. Whether 
there is such a thing as genuine telepathy remains to be de- 
termined by further research; the facts thus far observed 
being such as to create, it is true, an impression of the mys- 
terious, but not a conviction of the finality of the evidence. 
Besides, the facts reported are perfectly trivial compared 
with the miracle of the sudden cure of a mortal illness at a 
considerable distance, as in the case of the ruler's son. But 
there is one class of cures reported in the Gospels in which 
the very possibility of faith by suggestion is excluded. We 
refer to the cure of those distempers caused by demoniac 
possession. In these cases the victim of possession, inspired 
by the evil one within him and acting as though he were 
identified with him, would cry out in horror at the approach 
of Him whom he regarded as his greatest enemy. There is 
small intimation of faith here. 

But, waiving these considerations, let us endeavor to real- 
ize something of what is implied in the assumption that 
the cures wrought by Our Lord were due to purely natural 
causes. If they were not supernatural and purely miracu- 
lous, by what manner of means did He effect them ? The an- 
swer of our adversaries is that He possessed a wonderful 
practical knowledge of the use of suggestion ; such a knowl- 
edge, we would add, as modern practitioners may not hope 
to attain after generations of accumulated experience. But 
whence did He get it ? If He was the Incarnate God it is, 
of course, conceivable that He deigned to make use of a 
natural expedient like suggestion; but what then becomes 
of His appeal to His miracles precisely as miracles? That 
He regards them as wrought by the power of the Most High 
and as the seal placed by the Most High upon His life and 
His work is evident throughout the Gospels. 

If, on the other hand. He was no more than man, how 
are we to account for His knowledge ? How could a country 
carpenter, who was reputed among His townsmen to know 
nothing and who was scorned by them as a wicked pre- 
tender when He came among them in the course of His pub- 
lic life and presumed to explain the Scriptures — how could 



96 Christ's Divinity 

He be supposed to have learned the profoundest secrets of 
nature by the simple act of passing beyond the limits of 
His native village? Had His Heavenly Father suddenly 
given Him a knowledge of suggestion ? He could as easily 
have given Him the power of bona- fide miracles, which 
would have redounded more to the glory of Father and 
Son. But even if He had taught Him a knowledge of the 
purely human art, the sudden accession of such enormous 
knowledge and power would have been no less wonderful 
than the power of miracles. Thus it is difficult in any case 
to escape from the supernatural. 

But Providence has forestalled the criticism of the twen- 
tieth century as it has that of other centuries. Our Divine 
Lord provided that His miracles should be of so varied a 
character that adverse criticism, psychological or otherwise, 
if it took exception to some would find itself baffled by 
others. Bodily cures were not the only miracles wrought 
by Our Lord. Every species of miracle is represented in 
the Gospel accounts of His public life. Not only upon liv- 
ing men, but upon the dead ; not only upon human forms, 
but also upon the forces of inanimate nature, were His 
miraculous powers exercised. By a single word of com- 
mand He restored to life a young man who was being car- 
ried to his grave. For the raising of Lazarus Providence 
had brought it about that he should be dead four days and 
that his body should be already putrid, thus making the 
evidence of the miracle afterward wrought most patent. 
He changed water into wine, calmed terrific storms, walked 
upon the waters of a lake and enabled one of His apostles 
to do the same. Followed into a desert place by a vast 
throng, He multiplies five barley-loaves and two fishes in 
the hands of His disciples so as to enable them to feed more 
than five thousand persons and fill twelve baskets with the 
fragments that remain after all are satisfied. A similar 
miracle He performed in favor of four thousand persons. 

But His miracles were not confined to the domain of what 
are called nature's laws. The world of spirits was no less 
affected by His presence on earth. The devils, as we have 
seen, confessed His power as they were driven from the 
bodies of the possessed. Let any one who is inclined to 
skepticism on this point read the account of the exorcism 
of the demoniac in the country of the Gerasens (Luke viii ; 
Mark v; Matt, viii). Jn this instance the devil, after re- 



Church of Christ, The 97 

ducing his victim to a state of the wildest desperation, finds 
himself in the presence of the Saviour, Through the me- 
dium of the possessed one he adores Him and cries out with 
a loud voice : ' ' What have we to do with Thee, Jesus, Son of 
God? Art Thou come hither to torment us before the 
time ? ' ' Not far from them there was a herd of swine feed- 
ing. Jesus having asked the demon his name, the answer 
came, "My name is Legion, for we are many/' And the 
demons asked the Lord not to drive them out of the coun- 
try, but to cast them into the herd of swine. The Lord 
gave the command and the devils took possession of the 
swine, which numbered about two thousand; and imme- 
diately the swine rushed headlong down the side of the 
mountain and were drowned in the sea. 

His miracles were multitudinous, beyond all reckoning. 
They might be witnessed daily, almost hourly, during the 
space of three long years. They were frequently worked 
in the presence of vast multitudes, just as occasion occurred 
and without any sign of preparation — without any appa- 
ratus suggestive of the magician — without a single failure, 
such as occurs in our time at the seances of spiritistic me- 
diums, where the failure is attributed to the presence of 
an unsympathetic spectator. 

Moreover, the Gospels in which they are narrated bear 
the marks of a singular sincerity and simplicity, whilst 
their authenticity is further guaranteed by the fact that 
they were published in the lifetime of very many witnesses 
of the events narrated. It is to be noted, finally, that the 
miraculous career of Our Lord was not an isolated episode 
of history. It became the corner-stone of the Christian 
religion, which has changed the face of the earth and has 
profoundly influenced the destinies of nations. It was the 
divine power exhibited in His works, and in the works of 
His apostles, who wrought in His name, that brought to 
the feet of the apostles those who believed that in very 
truth the Kingdom of God had come among men. 

CHURCH OF CHRIST, THE 

HOW TO FIND IT 
Objection. — If the true Church of Christ is 
still in existence the claimants to that title are 
so numerous that the problem of finding the 



98 Church of Christ, The 

Church is beyond the powers of any but extraor- 
dinary minds. The average man might be ex- 
cused if he gave up the search. 

The Answer. — The problem is not so difficult in itself ; 
it is often made difficult by the way in which it is ap- 
proached. Christ established a Church that could be recog- 
nized by all men, high and low, learned and unlearned. 
"Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to 
every creature." These are His words; and when He 
added, ''He that belie veth not shall be condemned," He 
implied that to recognize the truth was possible, and more 
than possible, for otherwise the refusal to do so would not 
incur damnation. 

But the acceptance of the bare teaching of the Gospel was 
not enough ; that teaching was to be enshrined in a Church 
— an organized society — to whose rulers obedience was to 
be due. Christ speaks of "building" a Church, that is to 
say, of founding a permanent organization for the guidance 
of men to salvation. He enjoins obedience to it in such 
words as, "He that will not hear the Church, let him be to 
thee as the heathen and the publican." The sacred writ- 
ings abound in allusions to a Church, or assembly of be- 
lievers, governed by the apostles or those appointed by 
them ; a Church, too, about entering or not entering which 
there could be no question : to belong to it was a universal 
obligation. 

CONDITIONS FOR SOLVING THE PROBLEM 

The obstacles preventing one from getting at the truth 
about the Church vary, of course, with the individual. 
There are persons who feel a sort of fascination in merely 
skirmishing with the subject, and, generally, in merely 
playing with religious ideas. Eeligion is an interesting sub- 
ject ; mystery is always alluring ; and in our age there is a 
tendency to speculate about religion much in the spirit in 
which Doctor Johnson says the Greeks were wont to do, 
that is to say, without much sense of personal religious 
obligation. But such is not the spirit that pervades the 
New Testament. In the mind of Christ religion has a prac- 
tical aspect which can not be dissociated from it. A right 
mode of worship, a working out of one's salvation by the 



How to Find It 99 

aid of religion, a submission to divinely appointed author- 
ity in the Church (one true Church, as is plain), all this 
was an essential part of the plan of salvation to which 
Christ came to give effect. 

There is no choice left us but to use the means of salva- 
tion which He has provided. As He equipped the apostles 
and their successors with extraordinary powers, even that 
of binding and loosing, and that of opening and closing 
the gates of heaven, and commanded all men to hear them 
— ' ' He that heareth you heareth Me : and he that despiseth 
you despiseth Me" (Luke x. 16) — the possession of such 
authority would be absurd if men might at pleasure submit 
or refuse to submit to those who possessed it. Membership 
in the Church presided over by the successors of the apos- 
tles is therefore a matter of the strictest personal obliga- 
tion; and for those who are not yet among its members 
the duty of inquiry and of prompt and generous action is 
one of the most pressing nature. 

Before or after one has begun his inquiry he may be 
hampered by another obstacle — prejudice, especially in- 
herited prejudice, or that instilled in early childhood — 
prejudice that tends to block out all inquiry in certain di- 
rections in which it is taken for granted that the truth can 
not possibly be found. Many a convert to the Faith has 
been kept out of the Fold of Christ by prejudice the greater 
part of his life. Whenever there is question of putting one- 
self in an order established by Providence, or of personal 
salvation, which is the same thing, the closing of any ave- 
nue by which truth may reach the mind involves a risk 
which no man has any warrant for taking. 

Another obstacle lies in the complexity of the problem ; 
a complexity, however, which is not of its essence. The 
solution is difficult because it seems to be a matter of de- 
ciding between hundreds of sects all of which are denomi- 
nated Christian, or of shifting from one sect to another 
till the right one is found. The problem must be simpli- 
fied, and so simplified that a key to its solution may be put 
into the hands of all. The Church, we must repeat, is a 
Church that may easily be recognized by all, for to all the 
Gospel was to be preached. The Church must, therefore, 
possess distinguishing marks which can easily be recog- 
nized. 



100 Church of Christ, The 

THE MARKS OR SIGNS OF THE TRUE CHURCH 

The necessity of some marks or notes by which to dis- 
tinguish the Church is acknowledged by Protestants as well 
as by Catholics ; but the notes set forth by Protestants may 
be shown to be impracticable as guides. Protestants tell us 
that the true Church is to be found wherever there is a 
right preaching of the word of God and a right administra- 
tion of the sacraments. Now this double criterion is clearly 
delusive ; not only because it fails to distinguish the Church 
from schismatical bodies, but also and chiefly because these 
two supposed notes of the Church are, practically, no notes 
at all — that is to say, outward visible marks which are 
easily distinguished. They are facts, it is true, to any one 
to whom they can be proved to be facts, but they are not 
signs or marks which can be matter of direct observation. 
Sermons and rites are, of course, observable facts, but the 
rightness or wrongness of sermons or rites is not an ob- 
servable fact. If I am told, therefore, that any given re- 
ligious sect is known to be the one true Church of Christ 
by the fact that it preaches the Gospel aright and adminis- 
ters the sacraments aright, my answer at once is a chal- 
lenge : Prove that such is the character of its preaching and 
of its sacramental system. I have asked for a sign and am 
given instead a proposition that needs to be proved. 

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, insists on the 
application of tests which are more ready to hand but 
which, nevertheless, are infallible. The notes of the Church 
to which she appeals are supplied by the Nicene Creed, 
which is accepted by the greater part of Christendom. 

The true Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. 

Here we have four distinguishing traits which, compara- 
tively speaking, are easily discerned. The church possess- 
ing them can not easily conceal them. Unity and cath- 
olicity (or universality) will be manifest to the average 
observer. Holiness in ends, means, results, can not long 
lie hidden. As to apostolicity, or the Church's descent 
from the apostles, if any world-wide church possesses it, the 
fact will be written legibly on the pages of history. 

Now the Eoman Catholic Church is the only church to 
which these marks, either singly or in their totality, be- 
long. 

In the first place, there is prima facie (or first sight) 
evidence of their belonging to the Church of Rome. The 



How to Find It 101 

*'old" Church, as every one calls it, conspicuous for its 
unity, spread throughout the world (it is anything but nar- 
row or national), and exerting a special power and in- 
fluence for good — does not this sound like a description of 
the Church of Rome ? And in what other church does the 
presence of these traits show itself on the very surface? 
Here, then, we have a point of departure for the inquirer : 
the claims of the Roman Catholic Church merit first con- 
sideration, just as in physical science first indications all 
pointing one way have the first claim to the attention of the 
investigator. 

In the course of his study the inquirer will be led to see 
that the "old" Church is the veritable Church of the apos- 
tles by reason of the continuity of its tradition; that its 
unity is perfect and could only have been preserved by a 
special providence ; that its holiness is greater than at first 
sight appeared, and is due mainly to the preservation of the 
divine element in its ministrations ; and that in its charac- 
ter of a world-religion it is as universal as the merciful 
designs of its divine Founder. 

The inquirer will now be ready for a more particular 
study of the notes as possessed by the Roman Catholic 
Church. 

Apostolicity. — What is the origin of the present hier- 
archy of the Catholic Church, that is to say, of the graded 
ministry consisting of the Pope, the patriarchs, the bishops, 
the priests, etc.? It takes no profound knowledge of his- 
tory to see in the present hierarchy the lineal descendants, 
in a spiritual sense, of the apostles and their immediate 
successors. In each successive age we find the hierarchy 
of the time safely anchored in the past. Each diocese could 
exhibit the unbroken line of its spiritual rulers from the 
beginning. In the earlier centuries heresies were trium- 
phantly refuted by the application of the touchstone of 
apostolic succession. "We have it in our power," said 
Irenaeus in the second century, "to enumerate those who 
were by the apostles instituted bishops in the churches and 
the successors of those bishops down to ourselves." The 
same boast is repeated by Tertullian in the third century, 
and by others in successive ages down to the present. It is 
conceded by all that the present hierarchy of the Catholic 
Church is in a direct line of descent from the apostles. 

The acknowledgment of this fact is a matter of the first 



102 Church of Christ, The 

importance; for undoubtedly if the question is, which of 
the churches is the one true Church of Christ, a church 
whose succession of teachers and rulers can be traced to 
apostolic days must possess an immense advantage in the 
discussion as compared with any church not possessing 
such perfectly visible links connecting it with the begin- 
nings of Christianity. 

And now let us apply the test of apostolicity to the other 
churches. How can they possibly establish any connection 
with the apostolic age? Lutheranism began with Luther, 
a self -com missioned preacher, who succeeded for a time in 
making his opinions acceptable to his followers. A similar 
origin is that of all the Evangelical religions that have 
sprung up since the first half of the sixteenth century. We 
gather from the sacred writings that a preacher must have 
his credentials. He can not preach unless commissioned to 
do so. ' ' How shall they preach unless they be sent ? ' ' asks 
St. Paul, writing to the Romans (x. 15). No one can 
preach in Christ's name unless commissioned by Christ 
Himself, as the apostles were, or by those who have received 
their authority from Him. Hence the necessity of a suc- 
cession of commissioned preachers, each receiving his au- 
thority from another, and all tracing their commission back 
to Christ Himself. 

How shall they preach unless they he sent? What an- 
swer then can be made to the crucial question, Who sent 
Luther, Calvin, and Zivingli to preach? And above all, 
who could have sent them to preach a doctrine at variance 
with that universally taught in the Church of Christ? Is 
there any meaning in being ''sent" if the one sent preaches 
what he pleases? 

The truth is that the whole doctrine regarding the neces- 
sity of the preacher's being sent was virtually repudiated 
by the self-constituted reformers of the sixteenth century. 
They took the bold stand of preaching a doctrine opposed 
to that of the Church, although it ivas only from the CMirch 
they could have received a co)nmissi07i to preach at all. 
Did they fancy they were sent directly by the Holy Ghost ? 
If so. what manner of credentials did they bring with them 1 
St. Paul was sent by the Holy Ghost, but his credentials 
were well certified. His mission was revealed to the Church, 
he conferred with the other apostles about his teachings 
and taught the same doctrines as they. The Reformers' 



How to Find It 103 

commission from the Holy Ghost had no such certification. 

Furthermore, the idea of apostolic continuity includes 
much more than the hare fact of succession in office; other- 
wise the occupant of an episcopal see, though he turned 
Mohammedan and preached Mohammedanism, might still 
claim to be a successor of the apostles! The faith and 
practice of the apostles must also be handed on to posterity 
by the occupants of sees. If the rulers of God's Church 
in the twentieth century do not stand for all that the apos- 
tles stood for in point of teaching and ministry the note 
of apostolicity is gone. 

It is conceivable that a bishop duly consecrated and given 
local jurisdiction should lapse from the Faith and use his 
office in the interest of heresy. In that case apostolic suc- 
cession would be a body without a soul. Jurisdiction, no 
less than orthodoxy, would necessarily cease, and true in- 
ternal succession would be no more than a name. And if 
such a bishop should consecrate another to be his successor 
and to propagate his heresy, the status of the latter would 
be like that of his predecessor. This is plain common sense, 
as well as the teaching of the Fathers. Now if this be the 
case there must be in the Church of Christ a criterion of 
genuine internal apostolic succession ; and our contention is 
that the only church possessing any such criterion is the 
Church which acknowledges the jurisdiction of the See of 
Rome. 

It is precisely by and through this universal jurisdiction, 
wherever it has been acknowledged, that orthodoxy has 
been preserved and the faithful have been given a security 
that they were under the genuine successors of the apostles. 
It is not our purpose at present to establish the claims of 
the Roman primacy — that we have done elsewhere in this 
volume — (see ''The Pope II — Christ's Vicar") ; and after 
all, we are dealing only with the phase of apostolicity 
which constitutes it a mark or sign of the true Church, 
easily discernible hy the many. The Roman Church is the 
only 07ie that has any recognized criterion of apostolical 
succession, whilst the other churches have absolutely none. 

According to the Anglican view, apostolicity in the 
Church consists of a number of separate streams of apos- 
tolic succession, each flowing in its own channel and never, 
unless accidentally, brought into conjunction with the 
others; whereas from the apostolic age onward the mind 



104 Church of Christ, The 

of Christendom has conceived of the Apostolic Church as 
an organic whole, symbolized, according to St. Paul and the 
Fathers, by the living human body, whose members are made 
one with the head. What possible criterion can Anglicans 
have in the matter of teaching and jurisdiction? Even if 
Anglican orders were valid, do orders confer local jurisdic- 
tion? If so, where is the proof of it? When the first An- 
glican bishops forced themselves out of the framework of 
the ecclesiastical polity in which their predecessors had 
been for ages, what guarantee could they give their flocks 
that they wielded apostolic authority? The voice of all 
Christendom was against them — as it is to-day; the Pope, 
whose supremacy their predecessors had acknowledged, 
repudiated them ; there was no foundation in Scripture for 
their anomalous position; and henceforth the veriest of 
heretics, if he succeeded in getting some genuine bishop to 
place his hands upon him, might usurp the government of 
a diocese in the name of Christ and His apostles. If op- 
posed by the Anglican authorities and required to answer 
the question, ''Where did you get your jurisdiction?" he 
might with justice ask them in turn, "Where did you get 
yours ? ' ' 

Historically, the Anglican system has borne its natural 
fruits in its evolution of doctrine and worship. Anglican- 
ism embraces to-day every form of teaching from Roman 
Catholicism (or something akin to it) to the veriest Zwin- 
glianism, and from Zwinglianism to Unitarianism, or 
worse; but its formularies and its Prayer Book are suffi- 
ciently elastic to be made to cover every vagary of the An- 
glican mind. 

The case of the schismatical churches of the East is 
scarcely better than that of Anglicanism. For more than 
eight centuries their standing before the rest of Christen- 
dom was assured by the one bond of union which united 
them with all the other churches — the primacy of the See 
of Eome. To-day, severed from the center of unity, they 
seek in vain for a rallying-point of orthodoxy. What is to 
be thought of apostolical teaching and jurisdiction in 
churches which for centuries acknowledged the supremacy 
of the Pope, then renounced it, again on two separate oc- 
casions embraced it, once more renounced it, till finally 
they lapsed into a state of bondage to the secular power 
which has been the latest stage of their downward course ? 



How to Find It 105 

It is evident, therefore, that the Church presided over by 
the Pope is the only one possessing the note of apostolicity. 
It is apostolic because its bishops are the true successors of 
the apostles and because it has a principle of unity which 
is the only guarantee of apostolic succession. 

Unity. — Unity and apostolicity, though differing in idea, 
are nevertheless so intimately connected that the one can 
not exist without the other. As true apostolicity includes 
the transmission of the doctrine and practice, in all essen- 
tial matters, of the apostolic Church, and as that Church 
was one and undivided, a church which possesses the note 
of apostolicity must be one and undivided in its teaching, 
its worship and its form of government. 

Perfect unity was an essential element of the design 
which our divine Lord carried into execution when He in- 
stituted the Church. For this unity He prayed and the 
prayer of the Son of God could not have been made in vain. 
"Holy Father," He prayed, " keep in Thy name those 
whom Thou hast given Me, that they may he one, as We 
also are" (John xvii. 11). "And not for them only do I 
pray, but for them also who through their word shall be- 
lieve in Me; that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, 
in Me, and I in Thee ; that they also may be one in Us ; that 
the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me" (xvii. 20, 
21). 

As the prayer of Christ must have been heard, there still 
exists a Church which exhibits such unity, a unity the 
model of which is that which subsists between the Eternal 
Father and His only-begotten Son, a unity the possession 
of which by the Church is a sign that it was founded by 
One who was sent by the Eternal Father: ''That the world 
may helieve that Thou hast sent Me." There must be in 
existence at the present moment a church which is one and 
undivided in belief, in worship and in corporate life. 

The one Church possessing such unity is not far to seek : 
the only Church which exhibits this triple unity is the 
Church properly called Catholic — the Church in commun- 
ion with the See of Rome. Its unity is, indeed, the despair 
of its enemies, many of whom, unable to copy it, have imi- 
tated the fox in the fable by decrying it as pernicious, as 
shackling human liberty and as an obstacle to human prog- 
ress. The Eoman Catholic Church possesses a unity which 
is the necessary consequence of its having a center of au- 



106 Church of Christ, The 

thority, from which radiate a power and an influence which 
unify the exceedingly varied human elements of which 
it is composed ; a unity which is at once inimitable and in- 
destructible : and both of these qualities proclaim its divine 
origin. If it were of human invention it would have been 
overthrown long before to-day ; but this principle of unity 
is as strongly intrenched as ever and continues to win ad- 
herents to the Church from the ranks of those whose fore- 
fathers, a few centuries ago, abandoned it. If it were of 
human invention the human mind could produce some imi- 
tation of it; whereas the unity of the Catholic Church is 
simply inimitable. It has no parallel in any human society, 
religious or secular. 

The unity of the Catholic Church is, of course, incom- 
patible with absolute freedom of thought in matters re- 
ligious. When a point of doctrine is explicitly set forth 
by Holy Writ, or when it is clearly defined by divinely 
constituted authority, the only rational course to be fol- 
lowed by the human intellect is to bow in submission to a 
higher authority than itself; just as in purely mundane 
matters one mind will accept the judgment of another bet- 
ter informed. But outside the circle of truth thus revealed 
or defined there is a vast field opened to human specula- 
tion, one, indeed, in which the brightest intellects have 
ranged untrammeled for centuries. 

In this connection, however, there is one essential differ- 
ence between the Catholic Church and all other religious 
bodies : controversies may arise about matters as yet unde- 
fined, but the parties in each dispute acknowledge the 
Church's power to settle the question at issue and accept 
beforehand, with full interior assent, any decision which the 
Church may deem it advisable to give. The recognition of 
such authority is the one great condition for the realization 
of the unity for which Our Lord prayed to His Eternal 
Father. 

It is all but needless to show how this truly Christian 
unity contrasts with the imperfect unity, or rather the 
absence of unity, that characterizes the sects. No sooner 
has any part of God's Church discarded the principle of 
unity and severed itself from the main body than, at once, 
discord begins to appear and sooner or later reigns supreme. 
Authority is superseded by opinion and opinion varies with 
the individual mind. We must leave it to the impartial 



How to Find It 107 

judgment of our readers to say whether such a state of 
things was contemplated by the divine Founder of Chris- 
tianity. 

And yet it is not rare to hear Protestants maintain that 
among themselves there is unity in essentials and disagree- 
ment in non-essentials ; but if you ask them which doctrines 
are essential and which are not, you will find that few 
Protestants will give the same answer. Even doctrines once 
regarded as essential by all Christians — the divinity of 
Christ, for instance — have in recent times lost their hold 
upon countless minds within the Protestant pale. Re- 
ligious belief has been left to the chance working out of 
human opinion; and gradually opinion diverges and sects 
multiply. The very cornerstone of Protestantism, the Bible, 
has lost its place of honor and the crumbling of the fabric 
erected over it is proceeding apace. Catholics, on the other 
hand, are fully entitled to use the distinction between ' ' es- 
sential" and ''non-essential," for they have in their midst 
an ever-living voice of authority, which decides to-day, as 
it decided in the first assembly of the apostles in Jerusalem, 
which teachings are essential and which are not. 

Catholicity or Universality. — The mission of the apos- 
tles was to the entire world, and the mission of the Church 
is the same. Hence she can place no limit, geographi- 
cal or racial, to the exercise of her ministry. ''You shall 
be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem and in all Judea and 
Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth" 
(Acts i. 8). These words are at once mandatory and pro- 
phetic: they enjoin the universal preaching of the Gospel 
and predict the fulfilment of the injunction. In penetrat- 
ing to every part of the earth the Church is, of course, de- 
pendent on time and on geographical discovery, but she 
would be unfaithful to her mission if she did not strenu- 
ously endeavor to extend her field of action; and Christ's 
promises would be unfulfilled if the Church were not ac- 
tually found in every inhabitable and accessible place on 
the earth. 

The term "Catholic" or "Universal" was variously ap- 
plied by the Fathers of the early Church, but the meaning 
most commonly attached to the word was that of univer-- 
sality of place. Such ubiquitous presence was always re- 
garded as a test whereby the true Church of Christ was to 
be distinguished from its counterfeits. Heretical bodies 



108 Church of Christ, The 

were identified with particular localities, and against them 
appeal was made to the Church that was known the world 
over, and also, be it added to the one unvarying doctrine 
which it everywhere taught. 

For this oneness of doctrine is an essential element of 
Catholicity regarded as a note of the Church. If the 
Church, whilst extending itself geographically, changed its 
teaching, extension would be a virtual multiplication of 
churches. The greater the extension the greater the num- 
ber of the sects. What we shall look for, therefore, is a 
world-church — a church which is actually spread through- 
out the world and a church which is everywhere the same. 
Now which of the churches answers this description ? 

Can there be two possible answers to the question? Of 
the missionaries of the Catholic Church it may be said, as 
was said of the apostles, ' * Their sound hath gone forth into 
all the earth and their words unto the ends of the whole 
world." At no period of its existence has there been a 
known part of the earth unvisited by them. They have 
followed hard upon the footsteps of the explorer ; nay, not 
unfrequently has the apostolic man been in the very van of 
discovery. Columbus, the greatest of discoverers, was no 
less an apostle than a man of the sea. 

The labors and the success of our missionaries have won 
the enthusiastic praise even of our enemies. The ''Black 
Robe" among the North American Indians, the Jesuit of 
the South American reductions, the Xaviers and the Riccis 
of the Orient, have become household words among ordi- 
nary readers of history. In comparatively recent times 
seven million Filipinos have been won to Christianity and 
civilization. Even in China, where the spread of the Gos- 
pel has met with almost insuperable obstacles, the success 
of the French missionaries is the despair of their Protestant 
rivals in the same field. And who has not heard of the 
work of Cardinal Lavigerie and his "White Fathers" in 
preaching Christianity and aiding in the destruction of the 
slave trade in the wilds of Africa? The significance of 
these facts is that the Catholic Church has the same uni- 
versality of outlook as the divine Master when He sent His 
disciples to preach the Gospel to every creature, and that 
in every age she endeavors more and more to realize the 
ideal of absolute universality which every true Christian 
must have at heart. 



How to Find It 109 

And if we ask the further question, which of the churches 
is actually established everywhere and is the same every- 
where, the same answer is supplied by facts which all the 
world knows. If any one wishes to realize the ubiquity of 
the Catholic religion let him place himself in imagination in 
the Vatican, and endeavor for a moment to look abroad 
upon the world with the eyes of the present sovereign pon- 
tiff, Benedict XV. His children are found in all the 
countries of the globe. There is not a corner of the 
earth to which his jurisdiction does not extend. There 
is not an island in the remotest seas from which some 
ecclesiastic may not be wending his way ad limina Apos- 
tolorum, to lay the burden of his cares at the feet of the 
common father. 

St. Paul's ''solicitude for all the churches" {i.e., for the 
various parts of one and the same Church) was necessarily 
great, considering the number of foundations that claimed 
his care ; but what would be his solicitude if he were at the 
head of the entire Church to-day ? And what glowing de- 
scriptions of the kingdom of God on earth would he give in 
his letters if he could look beyond the Pillars of Hercules 
and see the countries of a new world whose teeming popu- 
lations looked to him for guidance and assistance ! 

If the extent of the Pope's dominion be expressed in 
numbers of souls subject to him it is no less impressive. 
Nearly three hundred million human beings, belonging to 
every clime and speaking every human tongue, and yet a 
unit in loyalty and obedience to a common father! The 
more varied the membership of the Church Catholic the 
greater is the wonder excited by its perfect unity in belief 
and practice. Such perfect unanimity can not have a 
human origin. Any attempt to explain it by any purely 
human or other natural cause must prove utterly futile. 
The only valid explanation is to be found in the promise, 
"Behold, I am with you all days even to the consumma- 
tion of the world. ' ' 

And now let us apply the test of Catholicity to those 
bodies of Christians which have separated themselves from 
the See of Rome. The sterility of the Eastern churches is 
almost proverbial. Schism and heresy have produced their 
effect in paralyzing apostolic zeal. The churches of the 
East will always be the churches of the East: the local 
brand will always distinguish them, until one day, as we 



110 Church of Christ, The 

may hope, they will range themselves among the loyal sub- 
jects of Christ's Vicar on earth. 

And what shall we say of the Reformed churches ? After 
four hundred years' existence the barrenness of Protes- 
tantism in the field of missionary labor is only too evident. 
With unlimited resources, what has it accomplished in the 
newer countries of the world? What are its conquests? 
What nation has it brought within the pale of Christianity ? 

The geographical extension of Protestantism has been 
due almost entirely to the migration of Protestants from 
their ancestral homes in Europe. In an age in which any- 
thing that may be transported on wheels or by water may 
be given some sort of universality it is not surprising that 
Methodism or Presbyterianism is in some manner repre- 
sented in the four quarters of the globe ; but in many places 
the sects are little more than represented. Protestant mis- 
sionary enterprises as compared with Catholic have been 
egregious failures. Even where Protestantism has extended 
itself by reason of the accidents of time its unity, such as 
it is, has been proportionately impaired. When Anglican- 
ism or Methodism or Presbyterianism transplants itself to a 
new country its new habitat will sooner or later give it a 
new name and a new creed. 

In the beginning of its history, Protestantism, securing 
the patronage of certain potentates in Northern Europe, 
succeeded in forcing its creed upon whole countries, but its 
native feebleness was demonstrated wherever it was brought 
fairly into competition, on anything like equal terms, with 
Catholic zeal. In the first years of the Eeformation Prot- 
estantism was in a fair way to possessing the whole of 
Europe ; but soon an army of saintly and energetic Catholic 
missionaries entered the field, and 'Hhe work of conver- 
sion," says Ranke, ^'advanced with resistless force," and 
vast provinces were recovered to the Faith. ''Fifty years 
after the Lutheran separation," says Macaulay, ''Ca- 
tholicism could scarcely maintain itself on the shores of the 
Mediterranean ; a hundred years after the separation Prot- 
estantism could scarcely maintain itself on the shores of the 
Baltic." Even to-day, in every country in which Prot- 
estantism once dominated, the tide of Catholicism is stead- 
ily advancing and the forces of Protestantism are steadily 
retiring. 

But the decline of Protestantism is not due solely to 



How to Find It 111 

the progress of Catholicism. In the northern countries of 
Europe and in America a species of internal decay has been 
consuming the religion of the masses of the population. 
Over the entire world, it is true, a wave of irreligion has 
been passing in recent years, but the Catholic Church is the 
only power that effectually opposes its progress. The other 
churches can scarcely get a hearing from the multitudes 
who are infected by it. In the United States alone hetween 
fifty and sixty million people own allegiance to no religion 
and seldom or never cross the threshold of a church. Of 
this enormous multitude the majority are of Protestant 
antecedents. 

And yet Protestants can still boast of large numbers, but 
their numerical strength, such as it is. loses all its signifi- 
cance when their numbers are severed from unity. Who 
can estimate the real strength of Anglicanism or of Calvin- 
ism when any Anglican or Calvinist may in his secret 
heart believe as he pleases. With Catholics it is different ; 
outward profession and numerical strength need compara- 
tively little discounting when taken as an index of genuine 
Catholic faith. All this being the case, the actual numeri- 
cal strength of Catholics in the world possesses no little 
significance. The Catholic population of the world, which 
before the advent of Protestantism was about 100,000,000, 
is to-day close upon 300,000,000;* and of this number a 
large percentage is the fruit of apostolic zeal either in civil- 
ized or in barbarous countries; and, what is more, this 
numerical strength has been developed during a period 
which has been mostly one of persecution. 

We have said more than enough to show that the Church 
in communion with Rome is the world-religion which the 
religion of Christ was intended to be ; that ever>^where in 
the world it is found to be the same and always true to 
itself; and that it exhibits an unequaled vitality of apos- 
tolic zeal which constantly tends toward the realization of 
that perfect and absolute universality which was in the 
mind of Christ when He sent the apostles to preach the 
Faith throughout the world. It is the only Church, there- 
fore, entitled to the name of Catholic. 

Holiness. — As the Church is the creation of the Son of 
God it should partake of the holiness of its Founder. It 

•292J87,085 is the number given by Fr. Krose, S.J., an expert 
in religious statistics. Catholic Encyclopedia, "Statistics." 



112 Church of Christ, The 

possesses a guarantee of holiness in the promise of Christ, 
''Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consumma- 
tion of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 20), and in the assurance 
that the ''gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt, 
xvi. 18), for if it were not holy it could not withstand the 
attacks of the evil one. The Church must be holy in its 
teaching, in the means it employs to sanctify its members, 
and in its actual sanctification of them. 

As regards personal holiness in the members of Christ's 
Church, it is evident from the Gospels that Christ foresaw 
that many would not respond to His generous designs in 
their regard. Men's wills would be free, and many would 
abuse their freedom of will and refuse to avail themselves 
of the means of salvation so bountifully provided for them. 
"It must needs be that scandals come," He said to His 
disciples. He foretold that iniquity would abound and that 
the charity of many would grow cold (Matt. xxiv. 12). 
Nay, before the close of His own life two of His twelve 
apostles — one-sixth of the whole numher! — sinned griev- 
ously, the one through weakness, the other through over- 
ruling passion. And afterward, even during the lifetime of 
the apostles, the beauty and the glory of Christ's Church 
were marred by schism and the grossest of vices. 

The inquirer must not, then, be misled by a false cri- 
terion. He must not be surprised if he finds tares among 
the wheat and vice in the near neighborhood of holiness. 
He must distinguish between the Church as a divine insti- 
tution and the Church as an aggregate of individual men. 
Once we have mastered this distinction we can turn to the 
Church as a divine institution, and as intrenched in the 
divine promises, with the expectation of finding in it a re- 
flection of the holiness of Him who founded it. We shall 
expect in particular to find in the Church : 1. A loyalty to 
moral standards and principles; 2. An effectiveness in 
teaching and enforcing the divine law; 3. A preservation 
of the channels of divine grace ; 4. A sanctification of souls 
on a large scale. 

Now what church can stand a comparison with the 
Roman Catholic touching the first two of these points? 
There is no need of going far afield to discover what lies at 
our doors. Our own country furnishes an object-lesson on 
the moral influence of Catholic teaching. Here in the 
United States, in the present perilous condition of morals. 



How to Find It 113 

what power or influence, or if you will, what public insti- 
tution^ can be thought able to cope with the moral corrup- 
tion that is advancing upon us like a deluge? Will some 
faltering voice suggest *' Methodism, " or ''Presbyterian- 
ism," or ''Anglicanism"? The weak influence these insti- 
tutions have upon individual consciences in the present au- 
gurs ill for their influence in the future. What we need is 
not sermons or Bible lectures only, but an institution that 
shall retain a firm hold on the traditional principles of 
Christian morality, and at the same time use effectual means 
of promoting morality. 

What Church can bear comparison with the Catholic in 
the guardianship of principles making for the moral wel- 
fare of society? The peace of families, the sacredness of 
the marriage bond, the religious education of the young, 
religion as the foundation of morality — where will any of 
these vital interests find in future generations an uncom- 
promising defender except in the Church of Rome ? After 
three centuries or more of competition between the two 
rival systems of religion, the American public may now 
judge of the practical worth and the true intrinsic charac- 
ter of the system based upon private judgment, and com- 
pare it with the religion which speaks and acts with a con- 
sciousness of divinely given authority and refuses to sur- 
render its principles to the "spirit of the age." 

More than half of the effectiveness of the Church 's minis- 
trations lies in what is called the sacramental system, 
which the Church teaches is of divine origin. In the sacra- 
ments there is a special embodiment of the truth uttered 
by Our Lord, "Without Me you can do nothing" (John 
XV. 5). God's grace is absolutely necessary as a means of 
salvation. Without grace it is impossible to overcome any 
grievous temptation, or even to persevere for any consid- 
erable time in the practice of the purely natural virtues. 
Hence Our Lord, through the Church and by means of the 
seven sacraments, meets every human need in the moral 
order and is ready with His assistance at every important 
turn in the journey of life. Through the sacraments a di- 
vine power is infused into the soul, and with it the germ 
of stability and perseverance. 

It was a bold step that was taken by the Reformers when, 
by their simple fiat, they destroyed what from time im- 
memorial had been regarded as divinely appointed chan- 



114 Church of Christ, The 

nels of grace. The destruction of the system was followed 
by its natural consequence — a lack of religious vitality in 
the great mass of Reformed Christians. The divine nutri- 
ment once supplied the soul was now withheld and spiritual 
depletion was the result. 

Some of our Protestant readers whose surroundings may 
be exceptionally edifying will doubtless be offended at our 
implying that in point of vital religion Protestants are in- 
ferior to Catholics ; but with all due regard for Protestant 
feeling the belief is not an iinfounded one. We are not to 
judge hy the few, hut hy the multitude. It was to the 
multitude that Christ preached, and a church's influence 
on the multitude must be one of the tests of its Christlike 
character. Will it be maintained that the sects have a 
hold upon the multitude here in America 1 Are they aware 
that we are confronted with a nation of indifferentists and 
agnostics? Are they ignorant of the influence of godless 
schools on practical morality? And all this, and much be- 
sides, in a country that was once the paradise of Protest- 
antism ! 

In contrast with this state of things, of the fifteen or six- 
teen millio7is that make up the solid Catholic phalanx the 
great majority are effectually and practically influenced 
by their vital connection with the Church, and especially 
by their reception of the sacraments. There is absolutely 
no comparison between the religious devotion of Catholics 
and that of non-Catholics. Their churches are filled, not 
only when attendance at religious services is of strict obli- 
gation, but frequently when it is not ; and in nearly every 
church hundreds are seen at dawn assisting at the sacrifice 
of the Mass, and again, on week-day evenings, attending 
the services of their sodalities or other such associations. 
Thousands are active promoters of the Apostleship of 
Prayer, a really great instrument for the sanctification of 
souls. 

As regards the ordinary duties of life, the influence of 
the sacraments can not, of course, be brought home to the 
mind of any one outside the pale of the Church. Cath- 
olics know it and feel it ; non-Catholics often see its effects 
but are unable to trace them to their cause. In the case 
of the sacrament of Penance, however, of the effects pro- 
duced, one at least is fairly well known. A condition for 
the reception of the sacrament of Penance is the renounce- 



How to Find It 115 

ment of every species of dishonesty and the restitution of 
ill-gotten gains. Indeed the renouncing of every vicious 
habit of a serious nature is a condition for receiving absolu- 
tion from one's sins and admission to the reception of the 
Holy Eucharist. As regards the interior effects of the sac- 
raments, which are best known to those who experience 
them, the most effective appeal we can make is to the testi- 
mony of those innumerable converts who have felt a new 
light and strength entering their souls with the grace of the 
sacraments. 

One of the ripest fruits of sacramental grace is the desire 
to embrace what is known as the way of the divine coun- 
sels, or the way of complete renunciation. Readers of the 
New Testament must remember how on one occasion a 
young man came to Our Lord and asked Him what he must 
do that he might have life everlasting. Our Lord, nat- 
urally enough, bade him observe the commandments; but 
when the young man said he had observed the command- 
ments from his boyhood and asked what was still wanting 
to him, the Lord answered: "If thou wilt be perfect, go 
sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt 
have treasure in heaven: and come follow Me." Such is 
the way of the counsels — the giving up of all, to follow 
Christ the more perfectly. Are all our readers aware that 
this life of special renunciation has flourished in the Church 
in every period of its history ? 

Are they aware that to-day those who follow this man- 
ner of life may be numbered by the hundred thousand? 
They have heard of the Religious Orders of the Catholic 
Church; they have heard of their work of charity; per- 
haps they have heard of their apostolic zeal ; the great bulk 
of the work of converting the heathen has been accom- 
plished by the Religious Orders; but not all who are ac- 
quainted with this particular phase of the religious life 
are aware that the success of Religious in external labors 
is rooted in the most absolute self-renunciation, consisting, 
not only in the sacrifice of material treasure, but also in the 
immolation of the flesh and the will by the vows of chastity 
and obedience. 

It is needless to descant on the contrast between the Cath- 
olic Church and the other churches in the matter of the 
counsels. Attempts have indeed been made to naturalize 
the conventual life among non- Catholics, but they have only 



116 Church of Christ, The 

emphasized the need of its being planted in more congenial 
soil; and of this the latest proof has been given in the 
accession of whole com m unities of Anglican Religious to the 
Roman Catholic communion. It is plain that one impor- 
tant feature of Christian holiness is lacking in non-Roman 
religions. 

And this brings us to another, though not essentially dif- 
ferent, aspect of the holiness of the Church. In the Church 
of Christ, which, appearing as it did after the twilight of 
type and prophecy, might be supposed to exhibit the noon- 
day brightness of the reign of grace, one would expect to 
find some souls, nay, even very many in the course of ages, 
whose lives would show forth the transforming power of 
divine grace in an extraordinary degree. And who are 
these but the actual saints of the Catholic Church? — not 
only the canonized saints, but many besides whose memory 
will never be thus publicly honored. No age of the Church 
has been without them. Even in the sixteenth century, 
when the general decline in morals gave some color to the 
revolt against the Church of God, the number of canonized 
saints alone would be a surprise to our separated brethren. 
What, has Protestantism, or what have the sects of the 
Orient, to show in comparison with this galaxy of saintly 
men and women ? 

Far be it from us to belittle the virtues — in many cases 
the superior virtues — of those who do not share our faith ; 
for the realm of grace is, after all, not strictly commen- 
surate with the limits of the Catholic Church. Even pagans 
and infidels are not totally deprived of the divine assis- 
tance. But were we to ask for a list of men and women of 
world-renowned sanctity, it is difficult to see from which 
of the Reformed religions it would be forthcoming. Let 
them endeavor from the worthies of the sixteenth century 
— or from those of any century, or from all the centuries 
and from all the sects — to match a list which comprises such 
names as those of a Xavier, a Philip Neri, an Ignatius of 
Loyola, a Pius V, a Charles Borromeo, a Francis Borgia, 
an Alphonsus Rodriguez, an Alphonsus Liguori, a John 
Berchmans, a Peter Claver, a Stanislaus Kostka, an Al- 
oysius Gonzaga, a Cajetan, a Theresa, a John of the Cross — 
or, to come closer to the present generation, a Perboyre, a 
Vianney (Cure of Ars), a Dom Bosco, a Clement Hof- 



How to Find It 117 

bauer. But the attempt will, of course, never be made by 
any one who knows what is meant by a Catholic saint. 

But there is yet another feature of the Church's holiness, 
which is the most distinctive of all, though it shows itself 
more rarely than the others. The special presence of the 
Holy Ghost in the Church is attested by the miraculous 
power conferred on at least a few in each age, and in the 
wonders vsrrought in places hallowed by the devotion of 
the faithful. When Our Lord commanded His apostles to 
preach the Gospel in the whole world, He made the follow- 
ing predictions: "And these signs shall follow them that 
believe: in My name they shall cast out devils; they shall 
speak with new tongues ; they shall take up serpents ; and 
if they shall drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them ; 
they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall 
recover" (Mark xvi. 17, 18). That these signs did follow 
we are told in the Acts of the Apostles. That miracles have 
been wrought since the days of the apostles is the testimony 
of reputable historians. 

But we are not wholly dependent on the witness of past 
ages for our belief in the continuance of this mark of di- 
vine favor in the Church of God. Miracles are worked 
probably on as grand a scale as ever before in the history 
of the Church. IVIiraculous healing of the most astounding 
kind has been wrought at the famous Grotto of Lourdes, 
in France. Diseases pronounced incurable, diseases of an 
organic nature, fractures, lesions, tumors, cancers, have 
been cured, often instantaneously and under the eyes of 
numerous witnesses. Official records of these events have 
been kept and have been submitted to the scrutiny of medi- 
cal experts. There is nothing in nature to account for these 
wonders, and they are all connected with devotion to the 
Blessed Virgin under the title of Our Lady of Lourdes. 
There is an extensive literature bearing on these wonderful 
occurrences and information on the subject is within the 
reach of all inquirers. (Cf. ''Lourdes: A History of its 
Apparitions and Cures," by Georges Bertrin, — also "Mira- 
cles" in the present work.) 

But our aim just at present is not precisely to prove that 
miracles are actually performed. Our contention is that, 
as Our Lord promised this mark of His favor to the preach- 
ing of the word, as He did not, apparently, place any limit 



118 Church of Christ, The 

to the period of its continuance, and as it is probable that 
signs of His presence and power which He bestowed even 
upon the Jews of old would be continued in the Church 
which He came on earth to found, the Church which can 
present at least so much prima facie evidence of miracles 
and still believes in miracles, is more likely to be the true 
Church of God than any church which shows no signs of 
miraculous intervention and even discards a belief in mira- 
cles. The question here is: Which of the churches bears 
the greatest resemblance to the Church of Christ and His 
apostles, in this as in every other indication of holiness? 

And now we have almost brought to a close this excep- 
tionally long article on a very important subject. We have 
endeavored to describe the marks by which the Church of 
Christ is to be recognized. These marks, we have contended, 
should be of the most conspicuous kind in the case of a re- 
ligion that was to be preached to the entire world, and these 
marks are found only in the Church which acknowledges 
the supremacy of the See of Eome ; in the Catholic Church, 
rightly and distinctively so called. Any church which 
fails to present the same credentials is not the Church of 
Christ, and consequently not the Ark of salvation, even 
though it preserve, as many churches do, some elements 
of ancient faith and piety. 

It is possible that one or other point in the above argu- 
mentation may not at once produce conviction in the mind 
of the inquirer. We would ask him, in that case, to look 
at the argument as a whole, and then ask himself in all 
sincerity whether any such case can be made out in favor 
of any church but that of Eome. If none can, there is no 
doubting the conclusion that a Church that exhibits so 
many signs of divine favor and of divine preservation must 
be the Church of Christ, and the one only Church of Christ, 
and that consequently, as Our Lord made the acceptance 
of the true Gospel, or, in other words, membership in His 
one and undivided Church, a condition of salvation, the 
practical step to be taken will easily suggest itself to any 
logical mind. 



Church, The, as Mediator 119 

CHURCH, THE, AS MEDIATOR 

Objection. — The Church thrusts herself be- 
tween Christ and mankind ; and yet Christ is our 
one Mediator with God. None the less the 
Church has lost the world-subduing power she 
once possessed. 

The Answer. — The Church does indeed stand between 
Christ and mankind; hut she has not thrust herself into 
that position; she has been assigned it by Christ Himself. 
It is not in the power of man or of the Church herself to 
change that which Christ has established. 

Christ appointed St. Peter the visible head of His 
flock (John xxi,), and hence Peter stands between Christ 
and the sheep of Christ's fold. Christ, sending forth His 
disciples to preach, said to them: "He that heareth you 
heareth Me, and he that despiseth you despiseth Me" (Luke 
X. 16). "If thy brother shall offend against thee . . . tell 
the Church ; and if he will not hear the Church, let him be 
to thee as the heathen and the publican" (Matt, xviii. 
15-17). 

Plainly, then, the Church is in the place of an interme- 
diary between Christ and mankind. Christ is our Mediator 
with the Father, undoubtedly ; but the Church is our media- 
tor with Christ. It is from the Church of Christ that I 
must receive the teaching of Christ as well as the means 
of grace which He has provided. Such was the intention 
of Christ. "Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptiz- 
ing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of 
the Holy Ghost" (Matt, xxviii. 19). "He that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not 
shall be condemned" (Mark xvi. 16). 

It profits nothing, therefore, to be willing to adhere to 
Christ if one be not willing to adhere to the visible Church 
of Christ and to be led to Christ through the Church. The 
capital error of Protestantism is that it denies the necessity 
of adhering to the visible Church of Christ. 

But there is another objection to be met. It is a super- 
ficial one, however. The Church, we are told, has lost her 
world-subduing power. She once converted whole nations 
in a comparatively short time. We hear of no such con- 
quests nowadays. Meantime the nations are falling away 
from her. 



120 Church, The, as Mediator 

The objection is superficial because it is based on a few 
striking passages in history, such as the story of the con- 
version of the Franks under Clovis. The objector, looking 
in vain in modern times for a parallel to such events, con- 
cludes that the Church no longer advances on her trium- 
phant march through the nations. Yet the Church's work 
proceeds apace, now as in former days. The conversion 
of nations in the past was, as a rule, slower than is some- 
times supposed. It took centuries to convert any one of 
the northern nations. To-day there is no apparent diminu- 
tion of zeal in the Church's missionaries, and in all proba- 
bility it is attended by no less success. 

The Catholic missionaries in China have enormously dis- 
tanced their Protestant rivals in the same field. Accord- 
ing to the ''China Year Book" for 1914 the Catholics of the 
Empire number 1,363,697 baptized Christians and 390,985 
catechumens, or those preparing for Baptism, whilst, ac- 
cording to the same authority, the ninety societies and agen- 
cies engaged in Protestant mission work in China report 
only 167,075 baptized and 157,815 catechumens (cf. ''The 
Month," Jan., 1914). In British India and Ceylon there 
were in the year 1911 as many as 2,226,449 Catholics. The 
figures for British India are furnished by the Indian Gov- 
ernment Census (cf. "The Month," Sept., 1913). The most 
significant fact in connection with these missions is that in 
twenty-four years there was an increase of 1,102,022. Few 
records of missionary success in the old days can match 
those of the Catholic missions of Uganda, in Africa, where 
the number of the catechumens in five or six years rose to 
200,000. The conversion of the Filipinos to the number of 
7,000,000 has been the work of Catholic missionaries in 
recent centuries. 

In many of the more civilized countries of the world the 
Catholic Faith has been making steady progress. This is 
true even of Germany, the birthplace of Protestantism. 
The Catholics of the Empire form considerably more than 
a third of the population, and their steady numerical in- 
crease is a source of dismay in the Evangelical camp, which 
can not help noticing the gradual decay of religion among 
the Protestant masses. But dismay should not, at least for 
one reason, be the feeling engendered by Catholic success ; 
for if it were not for the Catholic Center Party in the im- 
perial parliament the socialists, with their atheistic and 



Church, The, as Mediator 121 

materialistic tenets, would to-day be the rulers of Germany. 
Socialism, we may add, is recruited chiefly from the Prot- 
estant working- classes. 

Among the educated classes in England it is no longer 
a reproach to a man to be a Catholic. The past seventy 
years have marked a return on a large scale of the people 
of Great Britain to the Faith of their fathers. During that 
period the Catholic population has more than doubled its 
numbers, showing a total at the present date of more than 
2,000,000. In the United States there are more than 15,- 
000,000 Catholics, and a large percentage of the number is 
made up of converts from Protestantism. The instruction 
of Protestants applying for admission into the Church is 
a well-known feature of parish and city-mission work. 

Can it, then, be true that the nations are falling away 
from the Church ? Even if it were, it would be no new ex- 
perience to a Church that has reached the good old age of 
nineteen hundred years. Centuries before to-day she lost 
large populations in northern Africa and in the East, but 
then, as ever afterward, she turned to new fields of con- 
quest. Since the revolt of Luther she has trebled her num- 
bers: four centuries ago there were 100,000,000 Catholics; 
to-day there are close upon 300,000,000. 

But is it not true that the Church is losing her hold upon 
the Latin countries of Europe? No one can regard with 
more concern than Catholics the extent to which unbelief 
and the neglect of religion have spread in those countries 
(though the same is true of Protestant countries — Germany 
and the United States, for instance) ; — but there is one 
feature of the situation in the Latin countries which must 
not be forgotten: religion in those countries has in it a 
principle of self-renewal, which is at work to-day, as it 
has been in the past, resuscitating what is dead and putting 
new life into what is decaying. 

Religion has passed through more than one great crisis 
in France; and that it is passing successfully through its 
latest crisis is evidenced by the astonishing growth of Cath^ 
olic activities which has recently appeared and which is 
noted as significant by the secular press ; and that, too, not- 
withstanding, nay partly in consequence of, persecution 
suffered at the hands of an infidel government. 

During the past four hundred years, and notably dur- 
ing the nineteenth century, we might say without much 



122 Church, The, and Salvation 

fear of exaggeration that scarcely a decade has passed in 
France but some choice fruit of Catholic zeal or piety of 
world-wide value and importance has been produced by 
this good old Catholic stock. To-day more than half the 
religious institutes whose members are daily seen wending 
their way through our streets on some mission of charity, 
or are devoting their lives to the training of the young in 
our schools, have sprung up in the Catholic soil of France. 

In Protestant countries, on the other hand, it is pre- 
cisely the ahsence of any self-renewing source in their re- 
ligion that casts a gloom even upon the social and political 
prospects of those countries, in which a license of unbelief 
and an atheistic form of socialism are so rampant. Is it not 
true, and are not rulers of countries like Germany aware 
of it, that the one great barrier against atheism and an- 
archy in those countries is the solid phalanx of the Cath- 
olic body? 

The Catholic Church still lives. It shows no signs of 
decay save to those who are ignorant of the real facts of 
modem history. 

CHURCH, THE, AND SALVATION 

Objection. — Catholics are taught that outside 
the Church of Rome there is no salvation. It is a 
poor recommendation of the Roman religion that 
it sends the majority of men to eternal perdition. 

The Answer. — The formula ' ' Out of the Church there is 
no salvation," is indeed familiar to Catholics and, more- 
over, has a recognized place in Catholic teaching, but for 
the most part it is misunderstood by non-Catholics. Cer- 
tainly, from the earliest Christian ages the truth has been 
enunciated in the Church of God that membership in the 
visible Church established by Christ is a necessary means 
of salvation, and according to Catholic teaching the one 
true Church of Christ is the Church which is in communion 
with Rome. This is the appointed way of salvation, and 
no other has been revealed. But is there no way of salva- 
tion open to those who through no fault of theirs are not 
convinced of the claims of the Church of Rome ? That we 
dare not assert. God's providence extends to all His ra- 
tional creatures; He has given them the light of reason; 



Churchy The, and Salvation 123 

He has written the precepts of the natural law upon their 
hearts; He does not leave them unassisted by His grace; 
and under Providence no one will be lost for not knowing 
truths which he has had no means of learning. 

If a direct and categorical answer be required to the 
question, Is it possible for one not in communion with 
Rome to be saved? our answer is: Yes, it is possible. But 
it is possible only in cases in which the persons concerned 
may be said, in some sense, to belong to the Church, though 
not consciously and avowedly in communion with it. Cath- 
olic theologians draw a distinction between an explicit and 
an implicit adherence to the Church of Christ; between 
what one explicitly holds and professes, on the one hand, 
and what is implicitly contained in his disposition of mind 
and heart in regard to the necessary means of salvation. 
Persons who have no means of learning the truth but are 
living according to their lights and are willing to use all 
necessary means of salvation, may be truly said to partici- 
pate, according to their needs, in the grace communicated 
by Christ to mankind through the Church. In this sense 
they are members of Christ's Church and to them the dic- 
tum, **Out of the Church there is no salvation," does not 
apply. 

Many non-Catholics are known to feel a keen personal 
interest in the question we are discussing ; and of this num- 
ber perhaps the majority, finding themselves in a state of 
mental unrest regarding the means of salvation, take com- 
fort from the thought that, after all, one may be saved 
without entering the Catholic Church. Now persons of 
this class can not afford to be indifferent to the conditions 
on which they may be saved, especially as set forth by a 
Church which dates from the apostolic age and which, as 
they themselves acknowledge, opens a way to salvation. 
These conditions are clearly stated in an encyclical letter 
addressed by Pope Pius IX to the bishops of Italy, August 
10, 1863. Whilst insisting on the necessity of seeking salva- 
tion through the Church, the Pontiff says : 

**It is known to us and to you that those who are in 
invincible ignorance [i.e., ignorance which they have no 
means of dispelling] of our most holy religion, who ob- 
serve the precepts of the natural law, which God has writ- 
ten in the hearts of all men, and who in their willingness 
to obey God live an honest and upright life, may, by the aid 



124 Church, The, and Salvation 

of the divine light and grace, attain to eternal life ; for God, 
who beholds, searches and knows the minds, the hearts, the 
thoughts and habits of all men, in His sovereign goodness 
and mercy, does not permit any one to suffer eternal pun- 
ishment who is guiltless of a wilful transgression of His 
law." 

Here it is distinctly taught that it is possible for a non- 
Catholic to be saved, but saved conditionally. The con- 
ditions are these: 1. That one has no means of knowing 
and recognizing the true Church of Christ. In our day it 
is to be feared that many seek a refuge in ignorance when 
ignorance might easily be dispelled by inquiry, study, and 
prayer. 2. That one shall not have offended God by any 
grievous sin, or, we may add as implied, that having so 
offended God he shall have duly repented. Acceptable re- 
pentance in this case must be based on perfect contrition ; 
that is to say, on a sorrow for sin which has for its motive 
the love of God for the sake of His infinite perfections. 
Any one who turns from his sin and turns to God by an act 
of love may be saved, provided he does not afterward 
turn away finally and forever from God. 

After what has been said it ought to be quite unneces- 
sary to remark that non- Catholics ought to be much less 
concerned with finding or inventing reasons for remaining 
where they are than with honestly and earnestly inquiring 
after the truth ; being determined at the same time to em- 
brace the truth, wherever or whenever found. If they think 
they may be saved outside the Catholic Church they should 
be careful to ask themselves, ''But howf 

If one who has not the truth is bound to seek it, those 
who have it are bound to impart it to those who do not 
possess it. It is possible for a non-Catholic to be saved, 
but nevertheless it is God 's will that the truths of the Cath- 
olic faith should be made known to him. If a non-Catholic 
has neglected to find the truth he will be lost; and hence 
every opportunity of enlightening him should, with all due 
discretion, be improved. 

Moreover, although a man may be saved in honest igno- 
rance of the truth, nevertheless his salvation is endangered 
by the absence of the many graces he would obtain through 
a knowledge and practice of the true religion. Protestant- 
ism has impoverished the spiritual lives of its adherents by 
drying up the wells of sacramental grace, which are filled 



Communion Under One Kind 125 

to overflowing in the Church of Christ and from which all 
its members may draw according to their needs. Among 
Protestants the holy sacrifice of the Mass is abolished, 
Christ is banished from the Tabernacle, the souls of men 
are no longer nourished by the true body and blood of the 
Lord, grievous sin no longer finds a healing power in the 
sacrament of Penance, the dying are no longer comforted 
and strengthened in their last journey by the Holy Viati- 
cum or by the Last Anointing. In their struggle with the 
world, the flesh, and the devil non-Catholics find their 
spiritual nourishment reduced to the minimum, and no 
wonder that so many of them give up in despair. Add to 
this that so many Protestants are living in a state neither 
of light nor of darkness, but in a sort of twilight of doubt 
and uncertainty which they have it in their power to dis- 
pel. This unenviable condition of our separated brethren 
it is our bounden duty to relieve. 

COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND 

Objection. — "The cuppe of the Lord is not to 
be denied to the laye people. For both the parts 
of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christes ordinaunce 
and commaundement, ought to be ministered to 
all Christian men alike." — Thirty-nine Articles 
of the Church of England, Art. 20. 

The Answer. — The Catholic Church would be the last 
institution in the world to deny the people anything in her 
gift that would conduce to their spiritual profit. If she 
gives the faithful the Eucharist only under one kind it is 
because she is obliged by circumstances to withhold the 
chalice from the laity ; but at the same time she neither in- 
fringes any ordinance of Christ Our Lord nor deprives the 
faithful of any essential benefit which the sacrament was 
instituted to confer upon them. 

But what are these prohibitory circumstances? They 
are, in general, circumstances connected with the reverence 
due a sacrament in which Our Lord Jesus Christ is as really 
and as substantially present as He is in heaven at the right 
hand of the Father. If our non-Catholic readers would ap- 
preciate to the full what we are going to say on the subject 
they must endeavor to realize that Catholics sincerely be- 



126 Communion Under One Kind 

lieve that under the appearance of wine is present, in the 
most real and literal sense, the precious blood of our divine 
Saviour. If the contents of the chalice were given to the 
laity they could not be given, at least as a rule, in a manner 
consistent with reverence. Hence the partaking of the 
chalice is permitted only to the priest, during the Holy 
Sacrifice, which is offered in the name of both priest and 
people. As we shall see later, communicants are not thereby 
deprived of any essential benefit conferred by the sacra- 
ment. 

But what are the circumstances in question? Catholics, 
certainly, can easily imagine them. Fancy a parish of ten 
thousand souls, for whose Sunday worship provision is 
made through six or eight Masses, rapidly succeeding one 
another from dawn to midday. At each of these Masses, 
when the signal is given, an army of communicants is seen 
approaching the altar-rail. Time is precious and holy com- 
munion must be given expeditiously, though with decorum 
and according to fixed rubrics. Imagine a chalice filled and 
refilled and filled again out of some common receptacle on 
the altar, with constant danger to its precious contents, or 
at least to some small portion of them. The danger of ac- 
cident or of irreverence increases, of course, with the num- 
ber of the communicants, among whom there are so many 
whose oddity of manners makes it difficult to administer 
communion even under the species of bread. 

Like enough, some portion of the sacred blood would 
remain unconsumed and would have to be preserved in the 
tabernacle amidst the other sacred vessels, which are used 
daily. How it would tax the priest's care to preserve that 
chalice, with its contents, from all manner of accident; 
and meantime the sacred species would be growing vapid 
or sour. Furthermore, many of the communicants would 
have a natural aversion to the taste of wine, others would 
not be able to retain it. Not a few would feel a repulsion 
to drinking from the same cup as others, in some cases from 
a reasonable fear of infection. 

These apprehensions are not fancy-bred; they are the 
fruit of the actual experience of the Church in the adminis- 
tration of the Eucharist under both kinds. They have 
been felt even in non-Catholic congregations, where they 
have been the subject of very serious discussion. An ad- 
ditional difficulty is experienced by some in our day, arising 



Communion Under One Kind 127 

from the fear that the use of wine in the communion ser- 
vice may beget the habit of intemperance. 

Leibnitz, the distinguished philosopher and theologian 
of the seventeenth century, who labored long but unsuccess- 
fully for the reconciliation of Protestantism and Catholi- 
cism, says of his own time, ''There are some Protestants 
who admit that if a person have a natural abhorrence of 
wine, he may be content with the communion of bread 
alone" — ** System of Theology," p. 121. Doubtless some 
of the Protestant denominations of to-day would abolish 
their present practice if it were not for the fact that com- 
munion under one kind formed the subject-matter of some 
of their original articles of protest against the Church of 
Rome. 

When the Reformers first came upon the scene com- 
munion under one kind was in actual possession. Why did 
they abolish it ? They retained so many other things which 
they had on the sole authority of the Church, and without 
a word of authorization in Scripture, that we ask with a 
natural curiosity and surprise why they did not retain 
communion under one kind, on the same authority. 

Leibnitz reminds his co-religionists of their inconsis- 
tency. "I have no doubt," he says, ''that those who are 
in authority have power to make laws in such matters as 
these ; and that the faithful are bound rather to obey them 
than to give rise to a schism, which St. Augustine shows 
to be almost the greatest of all evils. Indeed, the Church's 
power of defining is very extensive, even (though this is 
only in a certain way) in things which belong to positive 
divine law; as appears from the transfer of the Sabbath 
to the Lord's Day, the permission of 'blood and things 
strangled,' the canon of the sacred books, the abrogation 
of immersion in baptism, and the impediments of matri- 
mony; some of which Protestants themselves securely fol- 
low, solely on the authority of the Church, which they 
despise in other things" — Ihid., p. 124. 

They abolished communion under one kind and gave the 
chalice to the laity. One of the principal reasons alleged 
for the change was that communion under both kinds was 
a matter of divine ' ' ordinaunce and commaundement. ' ' But 
where do they find the ordinance and commandment? Sure- 
ly not in the famous sixth chapter of St. John's gospel, 
whose bearing on the Eucharist Protestants as a body will 



128 Communion Under One Kind 

not acknowledge. For the sake of the comparative few 
who do acknowledge it let us remark that although in v. 54 
Our Lord does say, ' * Except you eat the flesh of the Son of 
man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you," 
a rigorous interpretation of the words in favor of the 
utraquists would logically require a like rigor in interpret- 
ing another verse a little lower down: "He that eateth 
Me, the same also shall live by Me." Here the effect pro- 
duced by the sacrament is promised to those who eat His 
flesh : the drinking of His blood is not mentioned. Surely 
then the substance of the ordinance (formal or implied) 
would be observed by receiving communion under the spe- 
cies of bread. 

But perhaps there is a general ordinance in the words, 
'*Do this in remembrance of Me." But not even here is 
the practice enjoined upon the faithful in general. The 
words are addressed to the apostles and through them to 
the priests of the Church, but not to the people. As the 
priests were to offer the sacrifice, and as this required the 
species of both wine and bread, both were to be consumed 
by the priest. 

The principal, indeed the one essential, reason why com- 
munion under one kind is deemed sufficient for the faith- 
ful at large is that Christ Our Lord is present, whole and 
entire, under the species of bread just as He is under the 
species of wine. There is not, nor can there he, any physi- 
cal separation of the hlood from the ever-living body of 
Christ. Consequently, Christ, whole and entire, must he 
present under either species; and as it is He that is our 
sacramental food and drink, we receive the whole of our 
spiritual nourishment by receiving the sacrament under 
the appearance of bread. 

So much for the Eucharist as a sacrament. As a sacri- 
fice, on the other hand, both elements are necessary for the 
full significance of the sacrificial rite. Hence the apostles 
and their successors in the priesthood are obliged in the 
sacrifice of the Mass to consecrate both elements, and, as the 
communion is an integral part of the Mass, to receive both. 

Finally, the present practice of the Church has the sanc- 
tion of ancient usage. Although, very naturally, it was 
primitively the custom to give holy communion under both 
species, still there is abundant evidence of the fact that in 
the first centuries the faithful were allowed at times to 



Confession Divinely Instituted 129 

receive under the species of bread alone. They were in 
some cases permitted to take the consecrated species home 
to their houses, to be there preserved and received. The 
sacred Host was also sent to the prisons of the martyrs. 
Infants were also allowed to receive holy communion, but 
only under the species of wine — a custom still surviving in 
the Greek Church. These facts of ancient usage are not 
denied, nor can they be denied, by any one who has even 
an imperfect acquaintance with early Church history. One 
would suppose they were entirely unknown, so little im- 
pression do they make, even upon those who profess a 
reverence for the primitive practice of the Church of God. 
According to the opinion of the Protestant Leibnitz, the 
question of communion under one species is a typical case 
in which authority is needed to decide what is of divine 
ordinance and what is matter of ecclesiastical discipline. 



CONFESSION DIVINELY INSTITUTED 

Objection. — It is not in the power of the crea- 
ture to forgive offenses committed against the 
Creator; hence confession, in which the priest 
presumes to pardon sins, can not be of divine in- 
stitution. 

The Answer. — The power of absolving from sins was 
conferred by Christ on the apostles and on their succes- 
sors in the priesthood. This doctrine is based on Scripture, 
and both the doctrine and the practice are as old as the 
Church of God. The doctrine and the practice of the Re- 
formers were a novelty when first introduced; and that 
fact alone should awaken deep reflection in every sincere 
and open-minded adherent of the Reform. Novelties in 
religion are always to be suspected ; and as regards the re- 
ligion of Christ, novelties in doctrine are necessarily errors 
when condemned as such by the teaching authority of a 
Church which received so many promises of divine aid. 

Luther, it is true, retained confession in his new system 
of religion, but repudiated the pardoning power of the 
priest. His denial of this power was an innovation, was 
condemned by the Church, and, as we shall see, was con- 
trary to the plain and obvious meaning of the very words 
on which Luther could base any doctrine on confession. 



130 Confession Divinely Instituted 

In these words Our Lord plainly tells His apostles that they 
have the power of forgiving sins, and Luther had no war- 
rant for destroying the literal and obvious meaning of the 
words, especially on the inspiration of his own private and 
personal experiences. For, after all, were not Luther's 
personal experiences — his Heilserfahrungen^ as they have 
been styled — the origin of the new doctrines? (See "Jus- 
tification.") 

A direct proof of the Catholic doctrine on the remission 
of sins is found in the twentieth chapter of St. John's gos- 
pel (21-23), where the evangelist is narrating a vision of 
Our Lord after the Eesurrection : ''As the Father hath 
sent Me I also send you. When He had said this He 
breathed on them; and He said to them: Receive yo the 
Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive^ they are for- 
given them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are re- 
tained/' 

Still ampler powers, including the remission of sins, are 
conferred by the following words (Matt, xviii. 18) : ''Amen 
I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall 
be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose 
upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven. ' ' 

The first of these passages furnishes a demonstration of 
the principal points of the Catholic doctrine. This we 
shall endeavor to show in the following comments : 

1. ' ' Whose sins you shall forgive. ' ' The word ' ' forgive ' ' 
can have but one meaning, and the meaning should be 
obvious. The word can not mean, as the Lutherans main- 
tain it does, merely to declare that the sinner is forgiven in 
heaven, in virtue of his renewing the faith of his Baptism. 
When we say that a person forgives we do not mean that 
he declares that some one else forgives. The act is his own. 
In the present case, it is true, the act of forgiveness on earth 
must be ratified by an act of forgiveness in heaven ; but that 
is guaranteed by the promise and institution of Christ: 
"Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them," 
which is equivalent to saying, "The sins forgiven by you 
are in very truth forgiven, because they are at the same 
time forgiven by God." In other words, God graciously 
regards the act of His minister and representative as 
though it were His own. 

The word "forgive," moreover, must have the same 
meaning in the two clauses of the sentence, "Whose sins 



Confession Divinely Instituted 131 

you shall for give , they are forgiven them;" and as true 
forgiveness is meant in the second clause, it must be meant 
in the first; but in so far as the forgiveness is the act of 
God's minister it derives all its efficacy from divine in- 
stitution and divine ratification. 

Most Protestants are turned from the Catholic doctrine 
on confession by the strong repugnance they feel to the 
idea of a man's wielding powers which can belong only to 
God. But they should remember that the power to forgive 
sins is only a delegated power. The confessor really and 
truly forgives sin, hut always in the name of God. This 
appears in the very formula of absolution pronounced by 
the priest in the confessional : * * I absolve thee from thy sins 
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy 
Ghost/' It is not in his own name or by his own underived 
authority that he absolves, but in the name and by the au- 
thority of God. He absolves in virtue of a commission re- 
ceived from God. Just as a king might commission a high 
officer of his realm to pardon outlaws whenever he found 
tne offenders repentent and ready to make satisfaction for 
their crimes, so God can appoint the priests of His Church 
to dispense His mercies to sinners when they are found to 
be in good dispositions. 

It can not be denied that God can delegate one of His 
creatures to extend pardon in His name to his fellow-crea- 
tures. His absolute power to do so is not repugnant to our 
Christian idea of God and His attributes. The absolving 
power does not raise man to a level with God, since man 
absolves only in virtue of a commission from God. It does 
not make a man the absolute judge of the dispositions of 
his fellow-men, for God alone knows the heart ; but it does 
empower him, when he sees the ordinary signs of contrition 
in the penitent, to dispense the grace which God has at- 
tached to the sacrament. In this, as in other matters, he is 
one of the ''dispensers of the mysteries of God" (1 Cor. 
iv. 1). If the sinner who confesses does not truly repent 
for his sins, the absolution of the priest is not ratified in 
heaven. 

The wisdom of God in bestowing such power on His 
priests is manifest in the results produced by its exercise 
and in the way in which it responds to the cravings of the 
human heart. The effects of confession have been acknowl- 
edged by many of our separated brethren. (See *'Con- 



L 



132 Confession Divinely Instituted 

fession and the People.") Not, of course, that they have 
had any experience of such confession as is practised in the 
Catholic Church, but in those who have had such experi- 
ence they are aware that such effects are produced ; whilst 
the great gap in Protestant life caused by the absence 
of confession is brought painfully home to them. 

The divine wisdom is shown in the provision made for 
the unburdening of the heart — especially in regard to mat- 
ters which are the heart's own secrets and will not be com- 
municated to any one except under circumstances guaran- 
teeing peace of mind and perfect security. It is shown 
also in the fact that God has associated the reconciliation 
of the sinner with an external rite of religion, and one, too, 
that bears a special stamp of divine authority. Repent- 
ance, however sincere, if locked up in the heart, can not 
breed the peace and tranquillity experienced by the peni- 
tent when he hears words of absolution which fall upon his 
ears as though they had descended from Heaven itself. 
The divine wisdom is manifest also in the restraint put 
upon the sinner by the obligation of confessing his sins. 

2. The power to forgive sins extends to all sins. ** Whose 
sins you shall forgive, etc." No sins are excluded, and by 
the force of the words all are included. If any sins con- 
fessed with the proper dispositions could be denied forgive- 
ness, Our Lord, it must be presumed, would not have 
worded His solemn commission to the apostles in so general 
a form. Hence His words can not refer to the remission 
of sins in Baptism and consequently only to sins committed 
before Baptism, for as sin would be committed after Bap- 
tism, that, too, must fall under the powers of the keys. 

The Church from the earliest centuries has taught that 
no sins were excepted when the general power of absolving 
was conferred on the Church. The Montanists of the sec- 
ond century were condemned as heretics for maintaining 
that the Church had not the power of absolving from griev- 
ous sins. The Novatians, in the third century, fell under 
the same ban for restricting the power of the Church as 
regards grievous sins. Moreover, on this as on other essen- 
tial points relating to confession, the Oriental sects agree, 
and have always agreed, with the Catholic Church ; a fact 
which proves that in the early centuries, before East and 
West were divided, the present Catholic doctrine was that 
of the universal Church. 



Confession Divinely Instituted 133 

3. The power conferred upon the apostles was to be 
transmitted to their successors in the priesthood. The 
immediate recipients of the power of absolving and retain- 
ing sins were the apostles alone, for to them alone were 
the words of Our Lord addressed ; but the power conferred 
on the apostles was to be perpetuated in the Church. For, 
when Our Lord, in granting this power to the apostles, ut- 
tered the words, "As the Father hath sent Me, I also send 
you," He could not have had in mind a merely personal 
favor bestowed upon the apostles. The mission which 
Christ had received from His Father and in virtue of 
which He sent forth His apostles must bear fruit in the 
Church to the end of time, and the powers conferred in the 
act of sending them forth must be perpetuated in the apos- 
tles' successors. 

It would seem strange indeed that Our Lord should so 
solemnly assure His apostles that He was now executing the 
great mission He had received from the Father by confer- 
ring a personal privilege which was to last only during the 
few short years of the apostles' lives. The mission of the 
apostles was to be the mission of the Church ; and as the 
Church was to endure to the end of the world the powers 
conferred on the apostles must be the lasting possession of 
the Church. 

We would ask any one who holds that the power given to 
the apostles was a personal and exclusive prerogative to 
consider the practical bearings of such a prerogative. The 
twelve apostles, let us suppose, possessed the personal privi- 
lege of absolving from sin, just as an ecclesiastic of our day 
may possess certain personal powers received from the Pope 
during a visit to Rome — powers of which his friends at 
home, say in America, are glad to avail themselves. A dis- 
cipline of penance would thus have been established; and 
although the apostles could not be everywhere, many Chris- 
tians, thousands, no doubt, would seek and obtain the privi- 
lege of being absolved by one of the Twelve; and just so 
far as it was a privilege it is conceivable that God might 
confer upon the apostles the power to grant it. But is it 
likely that in so important a matter as the reconciliation 
of the sinner with God and his eternal salvation some would 
be given the peace and security consequent upon this apos- 
tolic act and others deprived of it ? 

But what shall we say of the alternative power of "re- 



134 Confession Divinely Instituted 

taining," or refusing to pardon, which was given the apos- 
tles together with that of pardoning? The apostles would 
be empowered to refuse forgiveness on seeing improper dis- 
positions in the sinner. Is it possible that this element in 
the discipline of penance was to cease upon the deaths of 
the apostles ? that the rigors of the penitential system were 
to be held over the heads of obstinate sinners during the 
lives of the apostles, and then suddenly cease? How sin- 
ners would rejoice at the disappearance of the last vestige 
of apostolic power ! How helpless would that poor sinner 
be who should happen to be under an apostolic ban when 
the last of the apostles died ! 

4. But the power of forgiving and retaining sins was 
not to be exercised without any act proceeding from the 
sinner. Absolution on the part of the priest supposes self- 
accusation (of course with true sorrow) on the part of the 
sinner. Let us not forget that the power conferred was 
twofold. It was not only a power of forgiveness, but also 
a power of retaining, i.e., of refusing to forgive. If the 
power were only a pardoning power, it is perhaps conceiv- 
able that absolution could be granted without confession. 
The power of forgiving sins might be such that the 
priest, after exhorting one or more persons to repent in 
their hearts, might without more ado pronounce a formula 
of pardon. But the words, ''Whose sins you shall retain, 
etc., ' ' change the whole nature of the case. The priests are 
evidently constituted judges. They are to decide whether 
the sinner is worthy of absolution or not. But how can 
they do so unless they know the state of the sinner's soul, 
unless they know the specific character of his offenses, the 
view he takes of them, his resolutions for the future, his 
willingness to make reparation for the harm done the per- 
son, the character or the property of his neighbor? But 
all this supposes self-accusation on the part of the sinner. 
As regards sins committed entirely in the secrecy of the 
heart, it is plain that the priest can have no inkling of the 
state of the soul except through the confession of the sinner. 

5. But confession is not only a condition for receiving 
absolution ; it is a condition for eternal salvation, in regard 
to grievous sins, or sins that cut one off from salvation. 
In other words, there is a universal obligation of confessing 
grievous sins. This obligation is implied in the powers 
granted to the apostles and their successors. A little reflec- 



Confession Divinely Instituted 135 

tion should suffice to show the absurdity of a situation in 
which the priests of the Church would be equipped with the 
power of binding and releasing in matters bearing on eter- 
nal salvation, whilst the faithful would have it in their 
power to evade their jurisdiction. Many would doubtless 
choose the easier way, and many, still held in their sins by 
the refusal of the priest to absolve them, could and would 
nullify the action of the priest at pleasure. The binding 
power conferred upon the priests of the Church would be 
rendered perfectly nugatory. Confession must then be an 
obligation for all or for none. 

The obligation of confessing has been inculcated and in- 
sisted upon in the Church from the earliest ages. The rec- 
ords of the councils and the writings of the Fathers abound 
in testimonies to that effect. Among others, St. Basil says : 
"We must confess our sins to those who are appointed the 
dispensers of the di\dne mysteries" — "Reg. Brev., 286." 
And St. Augustine, the great Doctor of the West, writing 
as though he were addressing our modern Reformers, says 
to the people of his time : ' ' Let no one among you say : ' I 
do penance in secret and before God — God who knows that 
I repent in my heart will forgive me.' Was it said to no 
purpose, then: 'Whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall 
be loosed in heaven'? Was it to no purpose that the 
Church received the keys of the kingdom of heaven?" 
"Serm. 392, al. 49." Testimonies of the same kind might 
be multiplied from St. Cyprian. St. Irenaeus, and others. 

It is only too e\ddent that the Reformers in their discus- 
sions on confession have confined their attention to the 
absoMng power, and have shut their eyes to the binding 
power. The absolving power they have either diluted or 
reasoned away, except when they have regarded it as a per- 
sonal prerogative of the apostles. The power of binding 
is an idea which has not fructified in their minds. It would 
seem to be a seed dropped into uncongenial soil, whereas 
in the Catholic Church both ideas have germinated to the 
full in the penitential practice that has been handed down 
through the ages. 



136 Confession and the People 

CONFESSION AND THE PEOPLE 

Some Common Accusations. — Confession — at 
least private confession — is an invention of the 
priests. It is the secret force by which the 
Roman Church enslaves the consciences of the 
people. One of the worst features of auricular 
confession is the practice of questioning peni- 
tents about their sins. 

The Answer. — Any one who either utters or accepts the 
above statement about the origin of the confessional would 
be cured of his error by a slight taste of a confessor's ex- 
perience. So far as the interests of the priests were con- 
cerned it would have been the height of folly in them to 
have invented confession. Let us see what is involved in 
this supposed invention of the priests. To have to sit in a 
narrow box hour after hour, often in a stifling atmosphere, 
listening to story after story of spiritual misery; to be 
ever in readiness, night and day, to answer a call to the 
sick-chamber, where not unfrequently one must expose him- 
self to danger of infection ; to be committed to the obliga- 
tion of secrecy, by which one may forfeit all right of self- 
defense (there have been many cases in which priests have 
incurred the severest penalties by a refusal to betray the 
secrets of the confessional) ; these are only a fraction of the 
pains and discomforts and dangers brought upon them- 
selves by the priests in their supposed invention of sacra- 
mental confession. Let us realize all this, and then ask 
ourselves whether the game was worth the candle. 

An invention of the priests! When or where was con- 
fession invented? Has it not been in use in the Church 
from the earliest ages? (See ''Confession Divinely Insti- 
tuted.") That it was an invention of the priests was not 
the persuasion of some of the early Reformers. Confession 
has been retained in Lutheranism, and the absolution of 
the priest has a place to this day in Anglican formularies, 
though it stands for very little in the practice of the An- 
glican Church, except in High-Church circles. Does not 
the accusation against the priests sound like a party shib- 
boleth? 

And then the fell motive of the invention — the enslaving 
of the people ! Who, or what, can these slave-drivers be ? 



Confession and the People 137 

Whence are the priests recruited? Do they form a caste? 
or is it a family interest they are serving, and with a 
hereditary family spirit and policy ? Is it not preeminently 
true that the priests are of the people? No system of en- 
slavement could last even half a century if the enslavers 
were entirely recruited from the ranks of the enslaved. 

If by enslaving the people is meant getting a hold upon 
the conscience which tends to strengthen the Catholic cause 
and perpetuate the Catholic religion, then, admitting for 
the sake of argument that confession operates toward that 
end — which it does to some extent — the question now turns 
upon the merits of the Catholic religion. If it teaches the 
truth, the mind is not enslaved: ''the truth shall make you 
free." If it teachers error, the mind is indeed subjected 
to the servitude of error ; but how many of those who brand 
Catholic teaching as error and as a species of enslavement 
have taken the trouble to inform themselves of what gen- 
uine Catholic teaching is? On the other hand, who better 
than Catholics can give a reason for the faith that is in 
them? If confession is an enslavement, is it not strange 
that in the course of each year tens of thousands in English- 
speaking countries show themselves, by their return to the 
faith of their fathers, decidedly enamored of the state of 
slavery ? 

Neither are Catholics enslaved nor do they feel they are 
enslaved. A sinner who comes to his confessor under the 
galling yoke of sin steps forth from the confessional with 
a delicious sense of breathing the air of freedom. Peace 
and a sense of renewed hope and strength are the invariable 
feeling of those who have laid their burden at the feet of 
God's representative and have come away with a moral 
assurance of reconciliation with their Maker. The feeling 
of a Catholic after confessing has not altogether escaped 
the notice of our Protestant friends. Longfellow, in his 
''Evangeline," after describing the natural graces of the 
Acadian peasant girl, adds : 

"But a celestial brightness — a more ethereal beauty — 
Shone on her face and encircled her form when, after confession, 
Homeward serenely she walked with God's benediction upon her. 
When she had passed, it seemed like the ceasing of exquisite music." 

Goethe, who is universally known as a poet, but who was 
no less distinguished as a thinker and as a man who pos- 



138 Confession and the People 

sessed a large acquaintance with human life, has some ap- 
posite remarks on the subject of the confessional: They 
are reported by Henry Boss the younger, who tells us in a 
letter on Goethe written in February, 1805 : '' [After an ill- 
ness] he soon resumed his habit of having something read to 
him. I brought him Luther 's ' Table-Talk ' and read some of 
it to him. He listened with interest for a full hour." He 
here quotes some invectives of Goethe's against Luther 
which do not concern us just here ; after which he contin- 
ues : ' ' This led up to a fine discourse on the comparative ad- 
vantages of Catholicism and Protestantism. I agree with 
him in his strictures upon the Protestant religion, for plac- 
ing too heavy a load on the shoulders of the individual man. 
Formerly a burden might be taken off the conscience by the 
help of others, but now the soul must endure it, and endure 
it alone; and it has not strength of itself to restore equi- 
librium to its powers. Auricular confession should never 
have been taken away from men." 

Goethe, as a young man, had had some experience of the 
Lutheran confessional, which he had found anything but 
a haven of peace. We shall cite a few sentences from his 
^'Dichtung und Warheit" on the subject of particularizing 
in one 's accusation in the confessional, premising that Cath- 
olics are obliged to confess specifically all their grievous 
sins ; that is to say, sins by which they would forfeit their 
eternal salvation. 

''We were taught," he says, ''that we were much better 
than the Catholics for this very reason: that we were not 
obliged to acknowledge gmything in particular in the confes- 
sional, nay, that this would not be at all proper, even if we 
wished to do it. This last did not seem right to me ; for I 
had the strangest religious doubts, which I would readily 
have had cleared up on such an occasion. Now as this was 
not to be done, I composed a confession for myself, which, 
while it well expressed my state of mind, was to confess to 
an intelligent man, in general terms, that which I was for- 
bidden to tell him in detail. But when I entered the old 
choir of the Barefoot Friars, when I approached the strange 
latticed closets in which the reverend gentleman used to be 
found for that purpose, when the sexton opened the door 
for me, when I now saw myself shut up in the narrow place 
... all the light of my mind and heart was extinguished 
at once, the well-conned confession-speech would not cross 



Confession and the People 139 

my lips ; I opened, in my embarrassment, the book which I 
had in hand, and read from it the first short form I saw, 
which was so general that anybody might have spoken it 
with quite a safe conscience. I received absolution, and 
withdrew neither warm nor cold; went the next day with 
my parents to the Table of the Lord, and, for a few days, 
behaved myself as was becoming after so holy an act." 
Engl. Transl. I, p. 248 f . He then goes on to describe a ha- 
bitual state of trouble and doubt from which any prudent 
and experienced priest might have relieved him, but which 
as a fact led him to abandon the church altogether. There 
is small need of pointing the moral which will here suggest 
itself to many of our readers. 

Another eminent Protestant, Leibnitz,^ famous as a phi- 
losopher, a jurist, and a theologian, discourses, in his * ' Sys- 
tema Theologicum, " on confession in a strain which might 
easily be mistaken for a chapter from Bellarmine. 

''Assuredly," he says, ''it is a great mercy on the part of 
God that He has given to His Church the power of remitting 
and retaining sins, which she exercises through her priests, 
whose ministry can not be despised without grievous sin. 
Nor can it be denied that this is an ordinance in every respect 
worthy of the divine wisdom ; and if there be in the Chris- 
tian religion anything admirable and deserving of praise, 
assuredly it is this institution, which won the admiration 
even of the people of China and Japan ; for by the necessity 
of confessing, many, especially those who are not yet har- 



iLeibnitz (born 1646 at Leipzig, died 1716) will perhaps be a 
puzzle to the general reader if his habitual attitude toward Ca- 
tholicism is not explained. He labored strenuously to bring about a 
reconciliation between Rome and the Reformed churches, and in 
many parts of his writings he expresses distinctively Catholic 
views on the most important questions. His "Systema," from which 
we shall quote occasionally, was his genuine production, but it was 
not published till about a century after his death. It is a thoroughly 
Catholic work, so much so that Protestants have doubted his 
sincerity, or have regarded the book as an attempt by an able 
pleader, who could argue the two sides of a case, to make out a 
case for Catholicism, though still siding with Protestantism. But 
the antecedents of the writer make it highly probable that the 
"Systema" is the natural culmination of the writer's well-known 
Catholic tendencies. In the chapters from which we shall quote 
there ia not the smallest trace of the special pleader. In any case, 
his arguments have an intrinsic value, quite apart from his per- 
sonal authority. 



140 Confession and the People 

dened, are deterred from sin, and to those who have actually- 
fallen it affords great consolation ; in so much that I regard 
a pious, grave, and prudent confessor as a great instrument 
of God for the salvation of souls ; for his counsel assists us 
in governing our passions, in discovering our vices, in 
avoiding occasions of sin, in making restitution, in repair- 
ing injuries, in dissipating doubts, in overcoming despon- 
dency, and, in fine, in removing or mitigating all the ills of 
the soul. And if in the ordinary concerns of life there is 
scarce anything more precious than a faithful friend, what 
must it be to have a friend who is bound, even by the in- 
violable obligation of a divine sacrament, to hold faith with 
us and assist us in our need ? And although of old, while 
the fervor of piety was greater than it is now, public con- 
fession and penance were in use among Christians, never- 
theless, in consideration of our weakness, it has pleased 
God to make known to the faithful, through the Church, 
the sufficiency of a private confession made to a priest ; and 
on this communication the seal of silence is imposed, in or- 
der that the confession thus made to God may be placed 
more completely beyond the reach of human respect" — 
Engl. Transl., by Dr. Bussell, p. 135 f. 

The questioning of penitents has been no less unfairly 
represented by our critics than other aspects of confession. 
As a matter of fact, there is very little questioning of the 
ordinary penitent. Ill-disposed or ill-prepared penitents 
are questioned in order that the true state of their souls 
may be ascertained and proper direction given them; but 
over-curious or dangerous questioning is neither customary 
nor permitted. In the entire preparatory training of a 
priest special care is taken to cultivate in him habits of 
prudence and reserve in the performance of so delicate a 
task as the directing of human consciences. 



CREATION 

See "God's Existencs." 



Creeds and Deeds 141 

CREEDS AND DEEDS 

Erroneous View. — Right conduct does not 
seem to depend much upon formulas of belief. 
There are good and bad men in all religions. 
The great thing, after all, is to do what is right. 

The Truth. — The great thing, you say, is to do what is 
right, whether you believe what is right or not. But sup- 
pose for a moment that one of those things you are obliged 
to do is to accept certain articles of belief, or, in other 
words, to accept a creed — what then? Can you be indif- 
ferent to all creeds ? There is no Christian creed that does 
not profess to embody a divine revelation — an expression 
of God's own mind. The mind of God revealed to those 
whom He has created can not he a matter of indifference. 
What if one of those creeds should be a correct exponent 
of God's revelation: could you then be indifferent to all 
creeds, including the right one ? 

True it is that creeds differ and are mutually contradic- 
tory, and that consequently they can not all be right. In- 
deed there is only one true creed, as there is only one true 
revelation; but, though creeds are so different, we are not 
left without a clue to the right one. But it is not our pur- 
pose just here to point to the path leading to the one true 
creed — that we have done elsewhere. (See "The Church 
of Christ— How to find it" and ''Indifferentism.") We 
are anxious to come to close quarters with our indifferentist 
friend as regards his criterion of right and wrong actions. 

You say that our one great concern should be to do the 
right thing, whether we believe the right thing or not. Evi- 
dently, then, you regard some acts as good, others as bad ; 
and in this we agree with you. But why do you so regard 
them? You answer that every one has an instinctive feel- 
ing that some things are morally right, others morally 
wrong. But I reply that we are rational beings, and if we 
can plead no more than instinct we do not act according to 
reason. You will rejoin that it is rational to judge of 
things by their results, and that the results of the practice 
of the virtues of honesty, sobriety, and chastity are happi- 
ness for the individual and general order and prosperity 
for society. In other words, the moral virtues work well. 
But that is not morality — it is only expediency. 



142 Creeds and Deeds 

At any rate, you will say, there is a certain charm about 
right actions — which proves them to be right, and per- 
haps constitutes them such. Again, this is not the morally 
right, but the esthetically pleasing. Neither the expedi- 
ent nor the esthetically pleasant answers to that concep- 
tion of the morally good with which every child of Adam 
is gifted, and which it is the object of scientific ethics to 
bring into the foreground of consciousness. Morality im- 
plies a law, in the strictest sense of the term — a law which 
impresses itself on the conscience and tells me the right that 
must be done and the wrong that must be avoided. 

If there is no strict law back of the dictates of conscience 
there should be no sense of guilt when one does wrong ; but 
it is precisely because before acting I feel the force of a 
just command, which is the expression and application of 
a law of morality, that after acting I feel guilty for having 
gone counter to it. On the other hand, I know of no com- 
mand to do what is merely expedient or merely pleasing. 
It may be desirable to do the one or the other, but I don't 
feel bound to do either. But where it is a question of the 
morally right or the morally wrong, I feel that I am bound 
by the moral law to do the one and avoid the other. This 
is the only rational interpretation of that universal impres- 
sion which men have of a right and a wrong in their actions. 
There is a law, and a law that binds, beneath the dictates of 
conscience. 

But if we once admit a law of morality we must also ad- 
mit that it has its ultimate origin in that which is the source 
of all law — the will of God. All obligation in the moral or- 
der must be traced to the ultimate source of all authority, 
for authority is implied in the very notion of law. If I 
can not trace a reputed obligation back to the ultimate 
source of authority, I may feel it pleasant or profitable 
to do the thing in question, but I can not feel bound to 
do it. 

What we have said applies to moral action in general; 
but it is plain, of course, that when God's will is mani- 
fested by means of positive divine laws, as in the case of the 
Ten Commandments and the divine ordinances promul- 
gated by Christianity, the connection between human obli- 
gation and the divine will is more directly evident than in 
the case of the natural law impressed by the divine will 
upon the human reason. 



Creeds and Deeds 143 

But the connection thus established between morality and 
the will of God has important consequences. My notions 
of morality, or my application of the principles of morality, 
will vary according to what I know or believe about God 
and His law. They will vary, in a word, according to my 
creed. I can not, therefore, be indifferent to creeds. If my 
creed is a deistic one I reject many truths revealed by God. 
which I am not at liberty to do. If I have a creed which is 
Christian, but faultily Christian, — if, for instance, it takes 
a lax view of the marriage tie and permits divorce, — it 
op^ns the door to countless moral evils. If it is a creed that 
does not recognize a principle of authority to which one 
may look for an absolute decision in matters of faith and 
morals, it throws its followers back upon their untutored 
private judgment in matters of the first moment. If it is 
a creed (or a church) whose general spirit breeds an indif- 
ference to the religious education of the young, it is destined 
to reap a harvest of misdeeds beyond the reckoning of men 
and angels. 

Illustrations might be multiplied indefinitely, but they 
will easily occur to yourself if you once get seriously think- 
ing on the matter. But even though you observed the whole 
of God's law externally, the interior motive, which is the 
very soul of the moral act, would be a matter of the first 
importance. God as our Creator and sovereign Lord has a 
right to control our thoughts and feelings, which are the 
springs of outward action, for our whole being belongs to 
Him. But the effect of indifference to beliefs is to shut 
God out of our thoughts in reference to the morality of our 
actions and to fall back upon motives of pleasure or utility, 
— which is nothing short of denying the interior allegiance 
we owe to our Maker. 

A parody of Cardinal Manning's on a couplet of Alexan- 
der Pope 's may serve as a rallying-point for future thoughts 
on the subject of deeds and creeds. The poet had written : 

"For forms and creeds let graceless zealots fight: 
He can't be wrong whose life is in the right." 



Manning retorts as follows: 

jes 1 
stee 

(See ''Indifferentism.") 



"For charts and compasses let graceless zealots fight: 
He can't go wrong who steers the ship aright." 



144 Cremation 

CREMATION 

Objection. — What is to prevent a Christian — 
Catholic or non-Catholic — from directing that his 
body be burned after his death? There is noth- 
ing intrinsically wrong in cremation and it may 
be made an important factor in public sanitation. 

The Answer. — We grant that in the bare idea of cre- 
mation there is nothing necessarily sinful. The burning of 
a human corpse is not necessarily or essentially wrong from 
a moral point of view. But this one consideration will not 
settle the practical question. Cremation can not be consid- 
ered apart from its associations or from its bearings upon 
Christian thought and usage. It is this relative significance 
of cremation that justifies the Church in forbidding the 
practice; and in forbidding it she has the sympathy and 
concurrence of the great mass of Christians of all denomina- 
tions. 

The reader need not be reminded that the practice of cre- 
mating human corpses which is now getting into vogue was 
a general pagan custom at the dawn of Christianity and 
that it was the Church that brought about its general abo- 
lition. With the advance of Christianity the funeral-pyres 
disappeared and human remains were reverently laid away 
in tombs. The Jews had never practised cremation, and 
the fact that the Chosen People and the Christians, their 
successors in the Faith, were at one on this point is very 
significant. It seems to indicate what estimate of the 
human body is the natural one to believers in the true 
God. 

The early converts to Christianity had been accustomed 
as pagans to seeing the bodies of their deceased friends en- 
veloped in flames, and then — nothing but a handful of 
ashes to be carried away for a remembrance ; but now that 
they were Christians, they felt their natural affection awak- 
ened by their supernatural faith, and the human forms that 
were dear to them were left untouched save by the destruc- 
tive forces of nature. But, what is more to the point, the 
Christians regarded the bodies of their friends as having 
been the temples of the Holy Ghost and as awaiting the day 
when they should be glorified by being united with their 
souls in glory. Hence, nothing more natural than a rev- 



Cremation 145 

erent guardianship of the remains of the dead who had 
died in the Lord. 

To-day the Church has a fresh motive for insisting on 
the perpetuation of Christian burial and the exclusion of 
cremation. Enemies of the Church who are bent on de- 
stroying every vestige of ancient Christianity are in the 
forefront of the movement in favor of cremation. The free- 
masons in conjunction with certain cremating societies are 
making this a part of their propaganda against Christian 
beliefs and practices. The Church, as might be expected, 
is all the more zealous for her traditional mode of treating 
the remains of the dead, and she forbids her children to 
give any help or encouragement to a movement whose in- 
spiration is anything but Christian. 

Many eugenists also, regarding cemeteries of the prevail- 
ing type as a menace to the health of large communities, 
have been no less zealous advocates of cremation. Now the 
Church is alive to the necessity of guarding against infec- 
tion arising from this or any other such source ; and we may 
say with confidence that if the need for a change in the 
direction of cremation were sufficiently urgent, and if the 
evil complained of could not otherwise be removed, the 
Church would not object to cremation, where needed, any 
more than she has objected to the burning of human beings 
in certain plague-stricken cities ; but these dangers are often 
exaggerated, or at least can be met by expedients short of 
cremation. The proper location of cemeteries and the rig- 
orous enforcement of sanitary laws will doubtless be a suf- 
ficient solution of the problem for many a day. 

It will be well for Catholics to know the positive prohibi- 
tions of the Church in the matter of cremation. We would 
ask our Catholic readers to note well the following regula- 
tions : 

1. It is unlawful for any one to order or direct that his 
own remains or those of another be cremated. It is unlaw- 
ful to join any society whose object is to aid in the spread 
of the practice of cremation ; and if any such society should 
be affiliated to masonic organizations members of the society 
would be under the same ban as the Masons themselves. 

2. It is never allowed to cooperate in the cremating of a 
body by giving orders, direction, or advice concerning it. 
There may be reasons in some cases why officials, servants, 
etc., may be permitted to be present and even tO participate 



146 Darwin 

in the transaction, but they should ordinarily not do so 
without the consent of their confessors, who will be able to 
determine whether their mere material presence or coopera- 
tion is justifiable under the circumstances. 

3. No Catholic who has given orders that his body be cre- 
mated after death can receive the sacraments of the dying 
unless he is willing to cancel the orders. 

4. No one can be buried with the rites of the Church who 
is known to have decided, of his own free choice, to be cre- 
mated after death and to have persevered in his decision. 
Ignorance of the law of the Church or inability to reverse 
orders given for cremation may, however, be a just plea for 
indulgence at the hands of the Church. 

DARWIN 

A Misapprehension. — Darwin was "the incor- 
porated ideal of a man of science" — Huxley, as 
quoted by President Schurman. Darwin was not 
a Christian, and the weight of his authority must 
help considerably to tip the balance in favor of 
unbelief. 

The Truth about Darwin. — ''The incorporated ideal of 
a man of science. ' ' The phrase is not a happy one ; but it 
is probably meant to convey the idea that Darwin realized 
to the fullest the ideal of a man of science. We are not in 
the least disposed to underrate the real achievements of 
Darwin ; but, as his fame rests chiefly on his theory of nat- 
ural selection, and as that theory does not now seem likely 
to prove an adequate explanation of the development of 
species, the halo about Darwin's head has lost much of its 
luster. 

In natural selection Darwin lighted upon what seemed 
to him a bright idea ; and the idea was striking enough to 
arouse the enthusiasm of a generation ; but it was too sweep- 
ing and too imperfectly supported by evidence to be per- 
manently regarded as a key to one of nature 's great secrets. 
Natural selection is regarded to-day by leading scientists as 
a factor in the evolution of species, but not as the dominant 
one. Darwin started the scientists on the path of research, 
but put them on the wrong scent. Consequently, men of 
science are now seen retracing their steps in the endeavor 



Darwin 147 

to regain the highway of true scientific progress. (See 
'' Evolution.") 

In the present article we are chiefly concerned with Dar- 
win 's personal mentality, a study of which will prove high- 
ly instructive. 

Charles Robert Darwin was born at Shrewsbury, in Eng- 
land, February 12, 1809. He made his higher studies at 
Edinburgh and Cambridge. From 1831 to 1836 he held the 
post of naturalist on Her Majesty's ship the Beagle, dur- 
ing a government surveying voyage. These years marked 
the beginning of his labors in the collecting of specimens 
and in the study of facts upon which he afterwards based 
his evolutionary theory. In 1842 he entered upon a life of 
retirement and scientific labor, which finally issued in the 
theory of natural selection. 

His thoughts on the subject were, however, a matter of 
private speculation and would perhaps not have been pub- 
lished so soon had he not been aware that another investi- 
gator, Alfred Russel Wallace, was on the same trail. This 
determined him to make the results of his researches public. 
It is gratifying to know that Darwin and Wallace published 
the theory of natural selection conjointly, in essays read 
before the Linnaean Society, July 1, 1858. In 1859 ap- 
peared from Darwin 's pen the ' ' Origin of Species, ' ' a book 
which in some important matters revolutionized the study 
of nature, and gave the theory of natural selection an 
ascendency which it retained for several decades. Among 
evolutionists of the present day there is a growing tendency 
to reject natural selection as a full and adequate explana- 
tion of facts. 

Whatever may be said of Darwin as an evolutionist, it 
would be a grievous mistake to attribute to him the char- 
acter of a philosopher, and especially to regard him as a 
man of large philosophical outlook or of keen logical acu- 
men. He himself disclaimed the possession of any such 
qualities (with a humility, by the way, which is not a little 
to his credit), and there is nothing in his life which indi- 
cates their presence. The following extracts from his ' ' Life 
and Letters," edited by his son, Francis Darwin, will il- 
lustrate some of his intellectual peculiarities, and at the 
same time, we may add, prove that he was far from being 
of the class of rampant atheists who so often appeal to 
his name and authority. 



148 Darwin 

**I feel," says Darwin, ''in some degree unwilling to 
express myself publicly on religious subjects, as I do not 
feel that I have thought deeply enough to justify any pub- 
licity." Vol. I, p. 304. 

' * I have never systematically thought much on religion in 
relation to science or on morals in relation to society" — 
Ihid., p. 305. 

''Whether [the argument from causality for the existence 
of God] is an argument of great value I have never been 
able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a First Cause, 
the mind still craves to know whence it came and how it 
arose" (italics ours. Ihid., p. 306). 

The last sentence furnishes the best possible portrait of 
one side of Darwin's mentality. His mind is so deeply 
imbued with the notion that everything that exists must 
have been produced by something else that when his reason 
brings him to the first — absolutely first — cause in a series 
of causes and effects, he fails to see that the first cause 
would not be the first if it could spring from any other ; or, 
not to press dialectics with what may seem to be over-se- 
verity, he fails to see that when the mind reaches an abso- 
lutely first cause it is brought into contemplation of a Be- 
ing who is necessarily self -existent and eternal. Now this 
Being is precisely the God whom we Christians adore. But 
it must be admitted that Darwin's mind oscillated on this 
subject, in response to sound logic on the one side and a 
deep-seated evolutionary bias on the other. In the follow- 
ing extracts from the "Life," we would call special atten- 
tion to the sentences we have italicized. 

"When thus reflecting [on the argument from design] 
I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelli- 
gent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and 
I deserve to be called a theist. This conclusion was strong 
in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when 
I wrote the 'Origin of Species'; and it is since that time 
that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become 
weaker. But then arises the doubt, Can the mind of man, 
which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind 
as low as that possessed hy the lowest animals, be trusted 
when it draws such grand conclusions?'^ !! (p. 313.) 

' ' I have no practice in abstract reasoning, and may be all 
astray. Nevertheless you have expressed my inward con- 
viction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could 



Darwin 149 

have done, that the universe is not the result of chance. But 
then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the 
convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from 
the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all 
trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of 
a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a 
mindf" (p. 316.) 

Open-eyed wonder is the feeling which the reader doubt- 
less shares with the writer in lighting on these unexpected 
traces of the mind of Charles Robert Darwin. Here we 
have the extraordinary spectacle of a man who arrives, by 
the use of his reason, at the verge of the Eternal and the 
Infinite and gets a glimpse of the divine perfections, when 
lo ! in a moment all is changed — it is all an illusion ! How 
can an ape know God? 

If at such critical moments of his life Darwin had been 
able to steady his wits and reason thus: My mind has 
reached beyond the bounds of sense and caught a sight of 
the eternal First Cause; therefore my mind could never 
have been evolved from the mind of an ape ; or, if he had 
been consistent enough to transfer his intellectual fears to 
another object, the very evolution theory on which he was 
working, and had asked himself: Can the mind of man, 
which was once the mind of an ape, be trusted when it 
draws such grand conclusions about the origin of species? 
he would have escaped the state of utter confusion that set- 
tled upon his mind in regard to the real ultimate origin of 
species. 

No, Darwin was not a philosopher. Even as a naturalist 
he reached distinction by reason of these three facts : 1. lie 
made a brilliant guess, but the thing guessed was, after all, 
not the real truth. 2. He was a prodigious delver for data 
on which to build conclusions. 3. He succeeded in correlat- 
ing the data to some extent ; though he was obliged to leave 
it to some comprehensive intelligence, or intelligences, to 
make a synthesis of the myriad particulars. 

It is in no unfeeling spirit that we have exhibited the un- 
cultivated side of Darwin's intellect. We do so in order to 
supply one notable illustration of a fact which in the past 
two or three generations has forced itself upon the notice 
of observing men; to wit, the partial mental paralysis ex- 
hibited by many men of science who have never undergone 
a rigid training in mental philosophy. A second object we 



150 Development of Doctrine 

have had in view is to show how in the case of Darwin as 
representing a class, his ''spiritual powers," as President 
Schurman says of them, ''were atrophied by his absorbing 
preoccupation with the phenomena of the natural world, ' ' 
and ' ' like the domestic duck whose wings, he tells us, have 
become shrunken and useless from disuse, the pinions of his 
own soul, disabled for want of exercise, refused to soar 
above the solid ground of nature's familiar scenes and oc- 
currences" — Huxley and Scientific Agnosticism, p. 76. 



DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE 

Objection. — The Catholic Church is contin- 
ually introducing new dogmas. Such innova- 
tions are not within the competence of the 
Church, which received the deposit of the Faith 
to be transmitted unchanged to the end of time. 
Papal infallibility became an article of faith only 
thirty or forty years ago. Did the Vatican 
Council receive a new revelation on the subject? 

The Answer. — The Vatican Council received no new 
revelation, for none was needed. No change was made in the 
body of doctrine deposited with the apostles. The decree of 
Infallibility was but an interpretation of a doctrine already 
found in Scripture. As a historical fact, the Primacy and 
Infallibility of the successor of Peter had been recognized 
in practice throughout the history of the Church. It was 
the one bond of union between the various parts of the 
Church, communion with the See of Peter being regarded 
as the touchstone of orthodoxy, (See "Pope, The," II and 
III.) All that was lacking was an explicit definition, which, 
however, was not necessary till controversy made it so. 

"When the prerogative of the Holy See was seriously 
called in question the Church deemed it necessary to define 
the true and full meaning of the Primacy which had al- 
ways been recognized. The Faith was not changed but 
explained. But there is this difference in the situation be- 
tween now and before the Vatican Council, that now, after 
the explicit definition of Papal Infallibility, to deny the 
doctrine would be plainly and directly heretical, whereas be- 
fore the definition one might make bold to deny it because 
it was not explicitly defined and might therefore be re- 



Development of Doctrine 151 

garded as not taught by the Church. To-day there is no 
excuse for not regarding the primacy as implying Infalli- 
bility. 

The doctrine of Infallibility is a fair sample of a whole 
class of Catholic teachings which even to fair-minded per- 
sons outside the Church seem to be innovations. No declara- 
tion of the meaning and import of an old truth can be an 
innovation on the part of a Church which is appointed the 
custodian and interpreter of divine revelation. What seems 
to be a new doctrine is not new except in so far as it is an 
explicit declaration of what was contained in an older doc- 
trine. In this sense there can be growth and development 
in Catholic doctrine. 

The deposit of the Faith entrusted to the apostles and 
their successors must not be compared to a deposit of ma- 
terial treasure, which is to be locked away in a casket and 
to be inspected only occasionally by privileged eyes. The 
truths of revelation were to be received into human minds. 
They were to be subjects of meditation and were to grow 
into the thought and feeling of those who were to receive 
them. No large and comprehensive idea can remain 
wholly undeveloped. Reflections will necessarily make 
it yield more of its meaning than it did at its first enun- 
ciation. 

Such development of doctrine may, of course, lead to 
error; and as men's reflections differ they may sometimes 
result in contradictions. Hence, if there were no criterion 
by which to test the correctness of individual reflection and 
deduction Christian teaching would degenerate into a med- 
ley of conflicting opinions. But a criterion there surely 
is ; and the criterion is the ruling of a divinely constituted 
authority residing in the Church. There are times when 
the Church is obliged to exercise such authority and declare, 
as regards particular propositions, what must and what 
must not be accepted as truth. It must formulate the 
truth ; and the truth thus formulated is a dogma of the 
Catholic faith. It is new only as regards its newly de- 
veloped form. 

The position we have been defending has been attacked in 
our day by a school of critics which maintains that at least 
in the early centuries so-called developments of doctrine 
were not developments at all, but importations of foreign 
elements, the pure stream of Christian doctrine being con- 



152 Development of Doctrine 

taminated by an infusion of Greek philosophy. Even the 
fourth Gospel, we are told, which has been attributed to St. 
John, shows in its opening sentences the impress of Grseco- 
Oriental speculation. ''In the beginning was the Word, 
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." 
The "Word," we are reminded, was the Logos of Philo 
Judaeus, a philosopher who made a sorry attempt to amal- 
gamate his own Jewish beliefs with the pagan philosophy of 
Greece. 

The charge thus brought against early Christian teaching 
is more superficial than might appear from the array of 
learning by which it is sometimes supported. Critics hold- 
ing this view are misled as to the substance by confining 
their attention to the form. The truth is that when Chris- 
tianity came into contact with Greek philosophy and was 
obliged to meet it on its own ground it used the language 
of philosophy to express Christian ideas. Frequently, 
when a Christian idea found what was more or less a coun- 
terpart of itself in any teaching of pagan philosophy, the 
pagan notion was first purged of what was false and then 
in its new form adopted as Christian truth. The old term 
was thus used with a new meaning. 

It was thus that Christianity was made intelligible and 
acceptable to those whose thoughts had been running in the 
grooves of pagan speculation. Thus it was that the Logos 
of the later Greek philosophy was given its true meaning 
by St. John in the first sentences of his Gospel. The Word 
that was made Flesh, the Word that was with God and was 
God, was the real Logos, of whom only a distorted concep- 
tion was familiar to Greek speculation. Among the Grssco- 
Judaeic philosophers and among the Gnostics, the Monarch- 
ians and others, the term conveyed the idea of a mediator, 
who was vaguely conceived as personal and divine, and yet 
not regarded as one in nature and identical in substance 
with the Deity. With this being the Word of St. John 
could never be justly confounded. The difference between 
the two is emphasized in the very passage in which the term 
is used — ^'And the Word was God." 

It is true that nowhere else in the sacred writings is the 
same truth set forth in such plain and explicit language; 
but that only proves that nowhere else was it natural or 
to be expected that such language should be employed. St. 
John wrote from out an environment that was rife with 



Divorce 153 

theories concerning the Logos ; and what more natural than 
that he should announce the true Logos ? 

The case of St. John's gospel is typical of the use made 
of pagan philosophy by the early Christian writers. There 
was always a standard of doctrine, derived from Scripture 
and tradition, which enabled those writers to separate the 
chaff from the grain. If they used pagan language and 
modes of thought, they were not undiscriminating in their 
use of them. 

We are thinking, of course, of those who in the judgment 
of the Church were orthodox. The very distinction of 
*' orthodox" and "heretical" is sufficient to show that the 
Church was not helplessly exposed to the inroads of a false 
philosophy. The principle on which that distinction was 
based was that any philosophical opinion not in agreement 
with Scripture and sound tradition was to be rejected. 
Dogmatic formulae were framed with an eye to what had 
been taught from the beginning. This indeed is the most 
conspicuous feature of the teaching of the Fathers and the 
Councils. This principle was the very touchstone of ortho- 
doxy. 

No serious attempt has been made to prove that any ele- 
ments of Greek thought built into the fabric of Catholic 
teaching is at variance with Scriptural or apostolical doc- 
trine. Writers on the subject are often too much occupied 
with the external phenomena to penetrate to the substance. 
(See '^Dogmas.") 

DIVORCE 

Objection. — The Catholic Church forbids di- 
vorce in all cases. This law is more severe than 
that taught by Christ Himself; for He tells the 
Pharisees (Matt. xix. 9) that at least on account 
of infidelity to the marriage bond a husband may 
leave his wife and marry another. 

The Answer. — The first part of our answer will be di- 
rected to the believer, who accepts the Bible as the Word of 
God, and the second part to the unbeliever. 

It is on the text just referred to that the Reformed 
churches have built their doctrine on divorce. They ac- 
knowledge, most of them, that divorce is forbidden in the 



154 Divorce 

Gospel, but assert that one case is excepted, that, namely, 
in which the wife has committed adultery. In that case, 
they maintain, the husband may dismiss his wife and marry 
another. To this is opposed the Catholic doctrine, taught 
from the heginnmg of Christianity ; which is, that marriage 
can never be dissolved till the death of either of the parties 
to the contract. The two may live apart when there is a 
just reason for the separation, but until one or the other 
dies they remain husband and wife and can not remarry. 

The Catholic doctrine may be established by the very pas- 
sage in Scripture on which Protestants stake their whole 
case in favor of divorce. Let us see the passage in its con- 
text: 

"And there came to him the Pharisees, tempting Him 
and saying : Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for 
every cause ? Who answering, said to them : Have ye not 
read that He who made man from the beginning made them 
male and female ? And He said : For this cause shall a man 
leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and 
they two shall he in one flesh. Therefore now they are not 
two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined to- 
gether let no man put asunder. They say to Him: Why 
then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce and to 
put away? He saith to them: Because Moses, by reason 
of the hardness of your heart, permitted you to put away 
your wives: but from the beginning it was not so*' (Matt, 
xix. 3-8). 

Nothing can be more evident than that Our Lord's in- 
tention was to make marriage what it had been from the 
beginning and to abolish every modification of the divine in- 
stitution which had hitherto iDeen permitted. The old insti- 
tution was to be restored wholly and entirely. Therefore, 
to have a clear conception of what marriage ought to be to- 
day, we must go back to the period preceding the advent of 
Moses and the publishing of the Mosaic law ; for Moses was 
the first to permit a dispensation from the full observance 
of the primitive law. Now in that earlier period, as is plain, 
the marriage contract bound the contracting parties during 
their lifetime and absolute divorce was not permitted. In 
other words, the present Catholic doctrine held full sway. 
Hence to-day, as before the time of Moses, in the most abso- 
lute sense of the words, what God has joined no man may 
put asunder. 



Divorce 155 

This being the case, we are not prepared to encounter any 
expression in Scripture favoring a dissolution of marriage 
and undoing the reformation of marriage instituted by 
Christ. If any apparent expression of the kind occurs we 
may be sure that in the context there is enough to explain it 
in a way that will make it harmonize with the intentions of 
Christ. 

This is the case with the one single passage in the New 
Testament upon which Protestants erect their doctrine on 
divorce. After Our Lord had uttered the words quoted 
above He added : ' ' And I say to you that whosoever shall 
put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall 
marry another, committeth adultery; and he that shall 
marry her that is put away committeth adultery." (It 
should be needless to explain that it is not directly by put- 
ting away his wife that he would commit adultery, but by 
acts committed in a second marriage, which marriage would 
be simple concubinage as long as the first wife lived.) Here, 
the Reformers tell us, there is one case mentioned in which 
marriage may be dissolved, viz., that of fornication (or 
adultery) committed by the wife. 

In reply we would remind the Reformers that in fixing 
their attention on one part of the text they have forgotten 
another. The last clause brings the text more clearly into 
harmony with the manifest intention of Our Lord to abolish 
all absolute divorce. ^'And he that shall marry her that is 
put away committeth adultery." Why ''committeth adul- 
tery" unless the one put away is still the wife of the one 
who has put her away ? Even when there is a just reason, 
as in the case of fornication, for dismissing one's wife, the 
marriage is not thereby dissolved. Our Lord's meaning 
would then be expressed by the following paraphrase of the 
verse: "Whosoever shall put away his wife (though a man 
may be permitted to put away his wife on account of forni- 
cation, without, however, re-marrying), and shall marry 
another, committeth adultery ; and in any case he that shall 
marry her that is put away committeth adultery, because 
she is still the wife of another." 

Our Lord's meaning is no less clearly expressed in the 
fifth chapter of St. Matthew's gospel. Here, in what is 
known as the Sermon on the Mount, He contrasts the pre- 
cepts and the spirit of the old dispensation with those of 
the new. Such expressions as "it was said to them of old. 



156 Divorce 

etc., but I say to you, etc.," occur more than once. In re- 
gard to marriage we find the following : ' ' And it hath been 
said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her 
a bill of divorce" (Matt. v. 31). Here, as in the case of 
the other contrasts, we should expect something different 
to be prescribed by Our Lord from what had been permitted 
under the old law. We should expect to see divorce disap- 
pear under the new dispensation. And this we shall see 
is the meaning of the following verse : * ' But I say to you 
that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the 
cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery; and 
he that shall marry her that is put away committeth adul- 
tery." The meaning of the first clause in the above verse 
is that the husband that puts away his wife is responsible 
for the sin that may be committed by the woman through 
a second union, for she is still his lawful wife; but if he 
dismiss her on account of the sin of fornication, the husband 
is not responsible for what may happen afterward. She 
has deserved dismissal, and the blame is not her husband's 
if she incur the danger of further sinning. But Our Lord 
adds, without any exception or distinction, '^He that shall 
marry her that is put away committeth adultery/^ because 
she is still the wife of another. The contrast, then, is clear : 
Moses permitted a certificate of divorce dissolving mar- 
riage ; Christ permits no dissolving of marriage and regards 
as adulterous any marriage contracted by a wife separated 
from her husband. 

The Catholic doctrine is sustained by other significant 
passages in the sacred writers. In these there is no excep- 
tion mentioned to the law forbidding divorce, even when 
it would have been important for any exception, if there 
were such, to be mentioned. In St. Mark's account of the 
incident we have been considering as related in the nine- 
teenth chapter of St. Matthew, Our Lord's prohibition of 
divorce is ahsolute and conditionless. And when Our Lord 
after His discourse had gone into the house. His disciples, 
to whom He was accustomed to give exact explanations in 
private, questioned Him further on the subject of marriage. 
"And He saith to them : Whosoever shall put away his wife 
and marry another committeth adultery against her. And 
if the wife shall put away her husband and be married to 
another she committeth adultery." Note the universal ex- 
pression '^ whosoever" — none are excepted (Mark x. 2-12). 



Divorce 157 

Our Lord again in Luke xvi. 18 uses words of no less ab- 
solute import: ''Every one that putteth away his wife and 
marrieth another committeth adultery, etc." 

And St. Paul inculcates the law of Christian marriage 
without any mention of exceptions. ' ' The woman that hath 
a husband, whilst her husband liveth is bound to the law. 
But if her husband be dead she is loosed from the law of 
her husband. Therefore whilst her husband liveth she shall 
be called an adulteress if she be with another man, etc." 
(Rom. vii., 2, 3). 

In the First Epistle to the Corinthians (vii. 10, 11) St. 
Paul says : ' ' To them that are married, not I but the Lord 
commandeth that the wife depart not from her husband; 
and if she depart that she remain unmarried or be recon- 
ciled to her husband. ' ' St. Paul here speaks in the name of 
Christ and consequently as interpreting the words of 
Christ; and yet he not only makes no mention of any ex- 
ception to the law against divorce but positively excludes 
all exceptions ; for he contemplates cases in which the wife 
would depart from her husband, whether on account of 
her husband's sins or from some other cause, but he declares 
that she must remain unmarried, because she has not ceased 
to be a wife by being separated from her husband. He 
adds, moreover, ''And let not the husband put away his 
wife/' evidently by an absolute divorce, for the Lord Him- 
self had permitted the husband to send away his wife on 
account of sin, though he would still remain her true hus- 
band. 

Reviewing the texts we have been quoting, we find that 
it was Our Lord's intention to reform marriage root and 
branch. From the beginning matrimony had made man 
and wife one and had united them by a perpetual bond. 
In the course of time, owing to the hardness of men 's hearts, 
Moses was directed from on high to permit divorce; but 
Christ, when He came, re-asserted the sacredness of the 
marriage tie and declared that now, in the new era of 
grace, marriage should be what it had been from the begin- 
ning. Evidently, then, to permit to-day absolute divorce 
is to reverse the law of Christ and return to the Mosaic 
dispensation. It is to turn Christians into Jews ! 

The interpretation we have given the scriptural texts in 
question is the interpretation given them during the fif- 
teen centuries of the Church's existence before the appear- 



158 Divorce 

ance of Luther. The re-introduction of divorce on the sup- 
posed warrant of Scripture was a bold innovation, repro- 
bated by antiquity no less than by the living voice of the 
Church of God. 

The laying of violent hands on so sacred an institution 
as Matrimony — and St. Paul tells us that it is sacred enough 
to have been made the symbol of the union between Christ 
and His Church — is a striking illustration of the lengths 
to which private judgment may go in dealing with the di- 
vinest of things. In the present case it is all the more im- 
pressive as the innovation has wrought such sad havoc in 
the relations of men. When self -constituted reformers pre- 
sumed to make laws of their own for the government of 
the married state they were the authors, remotely and in 
causa, of the sin and disorder that have followed in the 
wake of divorce in our own day. Once an exception was 
invented to the law of divorce the door was thrown open 
to all manner of abuses. Absolute divorce, which was 
sought at first for more or less serious, though insufficient, 
reasons, has so utterly degenerated that to-day a discon- 
tented wife or husband can get a divorce from the courts 
almost on the asking. 

But, to return to the genuine Christian conception of 
marriage, when the Son of God became man and inaugu- 
rated the new dispensation the imperfect was to be super- 
seded by the perfect. God had for a time permitted mar- 
riage to lapse into an imperfect state, to prevent greater 
evils; but now, in an era of greater grace, and when the 
marriage contract was to be raised to the dignity and given 
the efficacy of a sacrament, the absolute permanence of the 
marriage tie was to be a law, admitting of no exceptions. 

And indeed it is only under the dominion of grace that 
marriage can ever realize the beautiful ideal of the married 
state contemplated by the Saviour of the world. It is the 
supernatural element in the relations of husband and wife 
that confers on Christian wedlock its unique character and 
makes it an object of admiration to those outside the pale 
of Christianity. It is the supernatural element that solves 
all those problems (or rather leaves none to be solved) 
which agitate the unbeliever in his practical study of 
human nature ; who, if he fails to solve them, fails because 
he eliminates a factor which is essential to their solution. 
He knows nothing of sacramental grace. Fixing his gaze 



Divorce 159 

exclusively on human nature with all its imperfections, he 
considers a universal law of permanence for the marriage 
bond an unnatural and rigorous condition under which to 
live, and regards it as the source of so many evils that the 
possible enacting of it can not be worthy of the Divine 
Wisdom. He forgets that it is precisely the Divine Wisdom 
that has supplied a remedy for human imperfections hy a 
special sanctification of matrimony. (See ''Marriage a 
iSacrament.") 

It may be objected that there are many who can not thus 
sanctify the married state. They know nothing of sacra- 
ments or of the effects, if such there are, of divine grace. 
Are these persons, when conjugal happiness ceases, to re- 
main the victims of an unnatural union ? Is there no means 
of escape from their unhappy lot ? 

To this objection we would reply that God's grace is not 
wanting to any class or order of human beings. True, the 
fullest influence of grace is experienced within the pale of 
the Church which Christ has made the dispenser of His 
mercies ; but according to their absolute needs grace is given 
to all men without exception. The divine aid is always at 
hand to assist the wedded in overcoming the difficulties of 
married life ; and to those who live according to their lights 
and observe the natural law, which is written on every 
human heart, grace is given in exceptional abundance. For 
no one, therefore, outside the Church is there any excuse 
for breaking the marriage bond. 

But what about innocent victims of an unnatural or an 
unhappy marriage ? 

We answer, in the first place, that both divine and human 
law provide for separation, without divorce, in cases in 
which exceptional suffering, guiltily inflicted, is endured 
by either of the parties at the hands of the other. This 
should be a satisfactory solution of the difficulty to all 
right-minded persons. It secures the happiness of the inno- 
cent party and is no injustice to the guilty. 

But, in the second place, it must be remembered that the 
divine law and all human law based on the divine provide, 
not only for the good of the individual, but also and still 
more for the good of society. The good of the greater num- 
ber is more important than that of the few. The divine 
prohibition of divorce debars the discontented wife or hus- 
band from the pleasures, such as Ihey may be, of a second 



160 Divorce 

marriage, but the general good of mankind is secured — in- 
deed, society is saved from the direst of evils. We may add, 
however, that it rarely happens that the individual is not 
saved from as great evils as society at large. What works 
for the general good works for the good of the individual. 

We can not do better in this connection than quote a 
forcible passage from a French author whose high intellec- 
tual influence in his native country is well known ; a writer 
of fiction, but of fiction based on realities. The words we 
shall quote are put into the mouth of a priest, and are 
addressed to a divorced woman who strangely wishes to be 
reconciled with the Church without separating from her 
second husband. The priest's refusal to admit her to the 
sacraments evokes a bitter complaint against the laws of the 
Church, which the woman declares are less merciful than 
the divorce laws of the Code. The priest 's reply is a vindi- 
cation of the marriage laws of the Church as preservative 
of the general good: 

''Let me give you an illustration, commonplace it may 
be, but to the point. A ship has arrived at a port where a 
passenger wishes to land. It is of the highest importance 
for him ; he wants, for instance, to see a dying father or to 
take part in a lawsuit upon which depends the welfare of 
his family — imagine anything you like. But a case of 
plague has broken out upon the boat and the authorities 
have forbidden that any passengers come ashore for fear 
of contagion. Would it be just, would it be kind, to give 
way to the entreaty of the one traveler at the risk of spread- 
ing the plague in a city of a hundred thousand inhabitants 1 
Clearly not. Here, then, is a case in which justice and 
charity demand the sacrifice of the individual interest for 
the general good. This principle dominates all society. If 
we are called upon to decide between two courses, the first 
clearly beneficial to the whole community and painful to 
some individual, the second agreeable to him but hurtful 
to the whole, both justice and charity demand that we shall 
adopt the first course. This is indeed the test which we 
must apply to every institution, and, applying it to indis- 
soluble marriage, what is the result? Society is composed 
of families, and the better the families the better will so- 
ciety be. Now think how much greater likelihood there is 
of healthy families where a system of indissoluble mar- 
riage prevails. If marriage is irrevocable it will be entered 



Divorce 161 

upon only after the most serious reflection; there will be 
greater closeness of bond between grandparents, parents, 
and children, since the family comprises fewer alien ele- 
ments, there will be chance of greater unity of spirit, of a 
common tradition. Marriage of this kind is the strongest 
pledge for that social permanence without which there is 
nothing but anarchy and perpetual unrest. And here his- 
tory confirms reason. It teaches that all superior civiliza- 
tions have developed toward monogamy. Now divorce is 
not monogamy ; it is successive polygamy. I will not give 
you a course of sociology ; but do you know what statistics 
show? Where divorce exists, the number of criminals, 
lunatics, and suicides is tenfold amongst divorced persons. 
Thus, for one who, like yourself and a few others, retains 
in his divorced condition the finer traits of heart and mind, 
the majority lose or debase them. To base social order upon 
the supposed needs of possible degenerates is to set up the 
abnormally low as a standard. We may call that progress, 
but science calls it retrogression. 

''Note that we have been looking at the matter from the 
point of view of pure observation. Purposely, as I wished 
you to realize the identity there is between the law of the 
Church and the law of society, between the teaching of 
experience and the teaching of revelation. In its struggle 
for existence humanity has fallen back upon the very same 
rule of which the Church has made a dogma. Try to realize, 
in the light of these ideas, how seriously you have erred in 
availing yourself of the criminal law which the worst ene- 
mies of social well-being, the would-be destroyers of the 
family, have introduced into our code. You yourself have 
assisted in this task of destruction as far as lay in your 
power. You sacrificed society to your own happiness. You 
and your second husband have set up in a small way a type 
of the irregular home, one, too, all the more dangerous be- 
cause your virtues enable you to set an example of decency 
in irregularity, and present an appearance of order in the 
midst of disorder. It is that which renders so dangerous the 
errors of the gifted ; they retain their natural nobility even 
when they sin, they fall without becoming degraded. They 
cloak the deformity of evil and spread it all the more in- 
sidiously. 

"Though it is but twenty years since that detestable law 
of divorce was passed, if you onl}^ knew how many tragedies 



162 Dogmas 

I have seen it produce already; into what catastrophes 
households like yours have been plunged through their fail- 
ure to discern the truth, which is stamped on every con- 
science, that liberty contrary to the laws of nature engen- 
ders servitude, neglected duty entails misfortune. I have 
seen fratricidal hatreds bc'vreen the children of the first 
and second marriage, fathers and mothers judged and con- 
demned by their sons and daughters; here deadly antago- 
nism between stepfather and stepson ; there between second 
wife and the husband's daughter. Elsewhere I have seen 
jealousy of the past, of a past living because the first hus- 
band lives, torture the second husband. Again, hideous 
struggles between the first husband and his former wife 
over their children's sick-bed, or, where the children have 
grown up, over a young man's follies or a daughter's mar- 
riage. Nor have I mentioned the ever-recurring bitterness 
against the ill-will, open or dissembled, hypocritical or sin- 
cere, it does not matter which, of a world which, after all, 
retains intact its respect for Christian marriage" — Paul 
BouRGET; A Divorce. 

To sum up: The Catholic teaching is not more severe 
than that of Christ, since it is identical with that of Christ 
and His apostles. Nor is it more severe than is required 
by the general good of society. And for the most part the 
individuals directly concerned — they and their offspring 
as well — are saved from many evils. The wisdom of Christ 
in abolishing all divorce is seen, by contrast, in the evils that 
follow in the track of divorce. It is no less visible in His 
sanctification of the married state by a sacrament whose 
effects are experienced by parents and offspring alike. 



DOGMAS 

Objection. — The binding force of dogmas is an 
unendurable slavery for the human mind and an 
obstacle to scientific research. "Let us not forget 
that the manufacture of dogmas at the Vatican 
has not yet come to an end" — Tschackert. 

The Answer. — As well might one say: "Mathematics is 
an unendurable slavery for the human mind: it makes me 
swallow the statement that twice two is four ; and it is an 
obstacle to scientific progress by forbidding me to say that 



Dogmas 163 

twice two is five.'* The case is exactly analogous to that 
of dogma in its relation to science. Dogma is simply the 
expression of absolute and undeniable truth. It is neither 
more nor less than what God has revealed ; and for the truth 
of it God, who is Truth itself, has pledged His word. 

Truth is the special and distinctive good of the human 
understanding. Therefore if, to some extent, the possibility 
of mistaking error for truth is removed from the under- 
standing, that surely is not slavery but emancipation from 
error. Progress in science will never be hindered by truth, 
and therefore never by dogma; on the contrary, it will be 
stimulated and promoted. The acquisition of one truth 
can not prevent us from seeking and finding another truth. 

' ' Manufacture of dogmas " is an excellent catchword, but 
the idea is rooted in misconception. It would not be sur- 
prising, it is true, if new definitions of doctrine were yet 
in store for us, as it would not be surprising if certain 
truths which the Church believes implicitly to-day were 
formally and explicitly defined to-morrow; or, in other 
words, if what is really contained in the original deposit 
of faith were clearly brought into view by dogmatic declara- 
tions. But it is oaly misconception or prejudice that can 
call such a defining of truth a manufacture of dogmas. 

The remarks of a German writer, Dr. Mausbach, on this 
subject are well worthy of consideration. (Vid. Scient. 
Suppl. of the "Germania," June 12, 1902.) 

"The Catholic Church," he says, "has always regarded 
the books of the New Testament, not as a system, or a com- 
plete and final course, of instruction, but rather as an out- 
come of the living preaching of the word, a compilation of 
various apostolic documents, originally issued as occasion 
demanded, but nevertheless possessing in their freshness, 
vigor and depth, as well as in their God-inspired dignity, 
a value that placed them far above all systems of human 
knowledge. But as the Gospel was to be, as Our Saviour 
expressed it, a good leaven that was to penetrate the whole 
life of man, the blending of the supernatural truths of reve- 
lation with those found in human systems of thought in- 
volved no sacrifice of the purity and simplicity of the Gos- 
pel message, but was rather a legitimate form of its develop- 
ment. As the germs of truth that lay dormant in the bosom 
of the early Church were, like the grain of mustard-seed, 
to expand later into the fulness of their life and growth. 



164 Education 

so it has come to pass that the simple and germinal elements 
of divine truth that appeared in the teachings of the apos- 
tles have, at a later stage of the development of God's 
kingdom, been more fully differentiated and more definitely 
related. ' ' 

These remarks will have thrown some light on the alleged 
influence of Greek philosophy on the teachings of Chris- 
tianity. That early Christian dogma was a tissue of Greek 
philosophical ideas is a favorite theory of Harnack's. *'The 
whole of Greek {i.e., heathen) thought," he tells us, "in its 
fullest development, established itself in the Church. ' ' Now 
this notion, as entertained by Harnack and others, implies 
that the deposit of the Faith received by the Church was 
substantially modified by contact with Greek philosophy. 
The assertion is easily made on the basis of mere surface 
indications in the dogmas of the Church ; and it can not so 
easily be refuted, at least fully and satisfactorily, in a few 
lines of print; but the burden of proof rests with the 
Church's accusers, and, what is more, the presumption is 
strongly against them. From the beginning, Christianity 
has been marked by a spirit of conservatism that is all its 
own. If there is anything that was characteristic of the 
early Pontiffs and Fathers it was the jealousy with which 
they guarded what had been taught since the foundation of 
the Church. Whenever they reached out to the future they 
first made sure that they were safely anchored in the past. 
The burden of their contention against every new heresy 
was that it was not borne out by apostolic tradition. 

And this is the Church that is lightly and superficially 
accused of changing its message to mankind under the in- 
fluence of Greek philosophy. (See ''Development of Doe- 
trine.") 

EDUCATION 

THE TRUE CHRISTIAN IDEAIi 

Objections. — Let the priests attend to religion 
— the schoolmaster has nothing to do with it. 
The teaching of religion is the work of the 
church and the Sunday-school. The school hours 
are short enough for the acquiring of the secu- 
lar knowledge needed to fit the pupils to fill their 
respective places in life. 



The True Christian Ideal 165 

The Answer. — Such is not the Catholic ideal; nor is it 
the true ideal of any Christian denomination, whatever 
may be its actual practice. The church and the Sunday- 
school can do a great deal in the matter of religious teach- 
ing ; but what if their influence be counteracted by that of 
the week-day school? The week-day school is a necessary 
adjunct of church and Sunday-school. The sovereign im- 
portance of religion and the difficulties attending religious 
training in our age make it imperative that religion should 
permeate the whole life of the child, and that whilst his 
mental powers are unfolding they should be constantly kept 
under the directive influence of religious motive. 

It would be a narrow and baneful conception of school 
training that would confine its scope to the training of the 
intellect. The formation of character is no less, in fact it is 
much more, a part of its province. But character supposes 
a grasp of right motives and a holding to right standards 
of action. Now there is no rectitude of motive and conduct 
which is not ultimately rooted in religion, for religion alone 
— be it natural or supernatural — can teach the truths which 
are the basis of all right conduct. Eliminate religion, with 
its eternal truths relating to the Divine Lawgiver and His 
unchangeable laws, and morality becomes a matter of con- 
vention or of expediency. It stands upon a false and shift- 
ing basis, and will be powerless against the inroads of the 
worse than pagan naturalism that now menaces society. 

A formation of character based on religious training 
must, therefore, go hand in hand with the training of the 
intellect. If school life were simply negative in its effect 
on character the case in favor of religion as an ingredient 
of education might lose something of its strength; but 
merely negative the moral influence of school life never can 
be. Contact with so many minds and with so many ideas 
must exert a positive influence on a boy's character. The 
books read, the example of teachers and fellow-pupils, the 
practical maxims embodied in the conduct of so many, the 
teaching methods with their incentives and sanctions, the 
conversations held in hours of relaxation, the friendships 
formed ; none of these things can be without their influence 
on a boy 's character ; and as all these phases of school life 
have important moral bearings, it is necessary that religion 
be present as a faithful guide and helpmate on the thorny 
road of school life. 



166 Education 

Eeligious training must, then, be combined with secular 
instruction. But how combined? 

The ideal way of combining them is that which obtains 
in the Catholic parochial schools of the United States. In 
these schools religion is not merely taught in the abstract 
or in theory, but is, at the same time, in many practical ways 
inculcated. In the first place, there is frequent catecheti- 
cal instruction, in which the pupil is made familiar with 
an order of ideas far transcending all others both in inter- 
est and in importance, and in which the specific duties of 
life are impressed indelibly on the conscience. At the same 
time the actual practice of religion is in many ways fos- 
tered. 

The old Catholic maxim, or a et lab or a — work and pray — 
is here held in honor. Successive periods of school work 
during the day are begun and ended by prayer. Thus 
habituated to prayer, the pupil is not likely ever to regard 
prayer as an intruder come to disturb his peace. Reminders 
of the unseen world of grace and holiness meet his gaze at 
every turn in the pictures and statues that adorn the walls 
of the schoolroom. Frequent acknowledgment of faults in 
the tribunal of penance, followed by the divinely efficacious 
absolution of God's minister, renovates his soul and pre- 
vents him from becoming a prey to evil habits. The Bread 
of Angels often received at the Eucharistic table matures 
and develops in him the life of the spirit. In the annual 
retreat the great truths of religion penetrate his soul to 
the very depths. Not unfrequently the retreat marks a 
great moral turning-point in a boy's career. 

Practical religion includes a great deal more than what 
are called pious practices. Good moral conduct, or the ob- 
servance of God's law, is the best fruit borne by religion; 
and this the Catholic parochial school affords many an op- 
portunity of promoting. In schools of this type an appeal 
can be made to religious motives, whereas in schools of the 
neutral sort such appeals would be considered out of place. 
* ' God, " ' * Church, " ' ' Sacraments, ' ' are not considered alien 
ideas in a Catholic school. To appeal to a boy as a Chris- 
tian and to remind him of his duties as a Christian is not 
outside a Catholic teacher's province. For a teacher to co- 
operate with a boy's parents in removing evil from his path 
and stimulating his good habits, to proffer a timely word 
of advice, to encourage acts of self-denial, to warn certain 



The True Christian Ideal 167 

of his pupils of the pitfalls which pride or sensuality may be 
preparing for them on the road of life; these and similar 
services to his pupils the Catholic teacher regards as within 
the compass of his essential duties. A zealous teacher in 
almost any school will find opportunities of enforcing a 
moral precept in the course of the daily recitations and 
readings, but in the Catholic parochial school he can do so 
without any restriction ; and his illustrations may be drawn 
not only from profane history but also from Holy Writ and 
the lives of the saints. 

We call this the ideal system because it brings the whole 
school life of the child into relation with religion. It is 
thus the natural complement of the home life in a typical 
Catholic household, where religion is paramount and all- 
pervading and where human conduct is continually viewed 
in the light of God's presence and God's law. The basis of 
the system is the principle that with the growth of thews 
and sinews religion should grow in the heart, and that from 
the dawn of reason the sense of moral obligation should 
begin to establish itself in the child's life. Thus religion 
and a sense of duty become a second nature in the child. 

The system has, of course, been assailed. It has been as- 
serted that such a system of training does not do justice 
to the secular education of the pupil, that the non-religious 
studies continually suffer from the intrusion of religion. 
The objection is not based on a knowledge of facts, but on 
some arbitrary notion of the actual working of the system. 
Thirty or forty years ago, it must be confessed, it was not 
so easy to overthrow the objection as it is to-day. At that 
period the majority of our parochial schools (not by any 
means all of them) found it difficult to compete with the 
State schools in the teaching of the secular branches; not 
because the pupils were overdosed with religion, but by 
reason of inferior equipment and organization. But things 
have greatly changed since then. The splendid organiza- 
tion and the superior training of teachers introduced in the 
past generation have produced results that have made the 
parochial schools the equals, in many cases the superiors, 
of those under State control. 

Now this ideal system is placed within the reach of the 
great majority of Catholics, and its fruits are manifest. 
Many Catholics, we are sorry to have to confess, do not 
avail themselves of it. Some parents, it is true, have reasons 



168 Education 

for preferring Catholic schools not belonging to the parish 
school system, but giving a no less efficient Catholic train- 
ing. With these we have no quarrel; our affair is rather 
with those parents who are indifferent or careless in the 
matter of choosing a school for their children, or who affect 
to believe that one school is as good as another in its in- 
fluence on moral behavior. We have in mind also a class 
of parents who fix their gaze solely on the supposed social 
or intellectual advantages possessed by non-Catholic schools 
(how often such estimates and the expectations built on 
them prove disappointing), or who are ready to seize pre- 
texts for sending their children to the public schools be- 
cause Catholic schools are looked down upon by their neigh- 
bors and acquaintances. 

It is a rare thing for a child not to suffer in consequence 
of such preference for the public schools on the part of his 
parents. That his parents do not perceive that he has been 
harmed by his non-Catholic education is a sad comment on 
their own religious frame of mind, and in many cases on 
the low moral and religious standard prevailing in their 
households. The boy's ignorance of his religion and his 
general unfamiliarity with things Catholic should alone be 
enough to condemn his being sent to a school in which nei- 
ther church nor religion can ever be mentioned. In matters 
of vital importance we are confident that in at least the 
majority of cases Catholic parents will not have to wait 
long to perceive the evil effects of their children's training 
in the public schools. 

Every boy tends to become like his environment; and 
who does not know what a boy's environment is in the 
public schools? In point of morality the children of the 
public schools reflect the condition of the population from 
which they have sprung. Now, we are not going to draw 
a line between good and bad in the population of these 
United States and place the Catholics on the one side and 
the non-Catholics on the other. Both bad and good are 
found among our Catholic people; and yet there is a vast 
difference in the moral order between Catholics and their 
neighbors. Catholics are of one mind in matters of belief 
and practice. The same can not be said of Protestants, 
even within the limits of any single sect. There is no dif- 
ference of opinion among Catholics regarding matrimony 
and the family. They are of one mind on the subject of 



The True Christian Ideal 169 

education, though the practice of a certain number does not 
square with their principles. Catholics have clear concep- 
tions of duty, which stand out in bold contrast with the 
shifting notions of non-Catholics. Among Catholics the su- 
pernatural is more habitually and more intensely realized. 
Their consciences are more frequently and more effectually 
brought to the touchstone of divine law and ecclesiastical 
ordinance, and the necessity of repentance for sin is more 
intimately brought home to them. The distinctive Catholic 
doctrine of the soul's dependence on grace, especially on 
grace as conveyed through the sacraments, is one of the 
great vitalizing beliefs of the Catholic Church. 

Over against the Catholic body we find a vast and motley 
multitude from which Christian influences are fast disap- 
pearing. In the first place, an immensely large part of the 
population of the United States is composed of indifferent- 
ists, atheists, and agnostics. Some fifty or fifty-five million 
persons have no connection with any religious denomination. 
Among those who profess any form of religion it is only 
too well known what small influence is exercised by non- 
Catholic churches on every-day practical life. Add to this 
that we are a commercial and industrial people ; and a peo- 
ple of that description in which religion is fast waning must 
gradually lose its hold on the principles of common honesty. 
The actual fact is evidenced by many a news item in our 
morning journals. 

A population that is rapidly drifting away from re- 
ligion and is seized by the ''get-rich-quick" fever will fill 
our public schools with children who, of course, are not yet 
as bad as their sires, but who are on the surest road to be- 
coming so, children, certainly, who are not accustomed to 
hearing the maxims of Christian morality inculcated. It 
is not surprising, then, that the minds of so many children 
are imbued with a worldly, selfish, unreligious, and ma- 
terialistic spirit. What is still worse, owing to the absence 
of religious influence in the life of the average child of the 
period, the sensual tendencies meet with little or no check, 
and the germs of vice are sown and nurtured in the soul 
even before the dawn of reason. 

A Catholic child can be reclaimed from habits of im- 
purity by the discipline of the confessional. Outside the 
Catholic Church there is no influence that can penetrate to 
the inner recesses of the soul and heal the disorder at its 



170 Education 

source. The atmosphere of Catholicism is rife with in- 
fluences tending to foster a love of purity. The familiar 
image of Mary Immaculate, the sight of so many who have 
consecrated their virginity by the vows of religion, the ex- 
ample of truly Christian mothers whose lives bear the im- 
press of the grace received in the sacrament of Matrimony, 
the modesty and reserve which is one of the fairest fruits 
of Catholic training; these and many another feature of 
Catholic life tend to preserve the ideal of Christian purity 
in young hearts. And even when the young do not for a 
time respond to the inspiration of their surroundings the 
influence of that ideal is not wholly destroyed. What a 
contrast in all this to the average results of non-Catholic 
training; and what a difference between the moral atmos- 
phere of a Catholic school and that of the schools conducted 
by the State. 

No one who has any grasp of the principles we have been 
setting forth or who realizes the state of things we have 
been describing can be surprised at the uncompromising 
attitude of our bishops toward schools and school-systems 
from which religion is excluded. They do not deny the 
right of the State to open its own schools, but State schools 
of the type prevailing in the United States, whatever may 
be their merits in other respects, are not regarded by them 
as suitable places for the rearing of Catholic children. And 
Catholics should note well that the bishops not only look 
with disfavor upon such schools but positively forbid pa- 
rents to send their children to them. There may be reasons 
in particular cases for allowing Catholic children to attend 
them, but the value of those reasons is to be estimated not 
by parents alone but also by their spiritual superiors. 

But even apart from obedience to the bishops, the choice 
of schools for children is one in which the consciences of 
parents are intimately concerned. In an age when the 
rearing of children is beset with so many difficulties, the 
courting of new difficulties is hardly less than sinful, espe- 
cially when the most vital interests of the child are endan- 
gered. Parents can not afford to take any chances with the 
faith and morals of their children in an age when 
temptation is so rife, when the world is so attractive, and 
when the broad road leading to perdition is crowded with 
the world's votaries. They should do for their children now 
what they will wish to have done for them in the evening 



The True Christian Ideal 171 

of life, when the complete results of their children's train- 
ing will be clearly manifest. 

What we have said of the lower grades of education is 
applicable to the higher education sought in the colleges. 
The peril to faith and morals is even greater in non-Cath- 
olic colleges than in the elementary public schools, espe- 
cially when the students are entirely removed during nine 
or ten months of the year from the saving influences of 
church and home. If the history of Catholic students in 
non-Catholic colleges in America were fully and truthfully 
written it would exhibit many a defection from the Faith ; 
and even where it did not record such sad disasters it 
would reveal many a seared conscience and many a poisoned 
mind. The least that may be said against the influence of 
such college training is that the average young Catholic 
educated in non- Catholic colleges is in some respects less 
of a Catholic at the end of his course than when he first 
crossed the threshold of what he calls his Alma Mater. 

We are chiefly interested in the welfare of our Catholic 
children, but we can not be indifferent to the lot of those 
millions of children outside the Church who in the next 
few generations are doomed never to hear of God or re- 
ligion either in school or at church or at home. These chil- 
dren will one day constitute the great majority of the adult 
population of the American commonwealth. Will the re- 
sults of this modern paganism bring about a reaction in 
favor of religion? We are not prophets. We can only 
raise our feeble voice in warning against the approach of 
an era in which the great mass of the people of our country 
will have no reason or motive derived from their education 
for preserving even the externals of morality, and when no 
restraint can be put upon public vice save by brute force — 
so long as brute force can be enlisted on the side of public 
virtue. Even in the interests of our Catholic children we 
can not be indifferent to the moral condition of those with 
whom they must perforce live. 

It is doubtless not easy to devise a practicable scheme by 
which religion, or at least what are sometimes called the 
common principles of morality, could be taught in, or in 
connection with, our public schools. Either the religion 
or the morality taught would have to be of one specific 
type, or all types would have to be represented. Tlie one 
plan would not be acceptable for intrinsic reasons, the other 



172 Education 

would not be feasible. Men are not agreed nowadays on 
common principles of morality. Catholics hold that divorce 
is in all cases immoral ; most non- Catholics do not. This is 
but an instance out of many of diversity of opinion on mat- 
ters of the first moment. 

If the present public school system is destined to be per- 
manent, and if there are children (we are thinking of non- 
Catholic children) who must go either to the public schools 
or to none, sooner or later the necessity of religious train- 
ing, for all, outside the schoolroom will force itself upon 
the attention of society, and self-interest, if not conscience, 
will be roused to action. The religious denominations will 
be appealed to for the salvation of society. What they will 
be able to accomplish will depend on the amount of gen- 
uine Christianity left in them and on the amount of au- 
thority they are able to wield; but, unfortunately, they 
are dropping one ancient Christian dogma after another, 
and, notoriously, their authority is but ill acknowledged by 
the mass of their members and no less feebly and ineffec- 
tually exercised. We have no disposition to belittle the 
good done or likely to be done by non-Catholic religions; 
but imagine any one who is able to make an impartial sur- 
vey of the situation regarding any of the sects, or all of 
them combined, as the future good leaven of society! The 
sight of much evil must therefore be endured till such time 
as the ancient Church, still retaining its ancient vigor, is 
enabled on a large scale to extend its salutary influence to 
the great masses of our people. 

The saving of society even in such a country as ours is 
not beyond the power of a Church that has made conquest 
of whole nations under circumstances no less discouraging 
from a human point of view. True, the real enemies with 
which the Church will be confronted — modern indifferent- 
ism, worldliness, and vice intrenched in custom and all 
but sanctioned by convention — are of the most formidable 
kind; but, even these powerful solvents can not wholly 
destroy the germ of religion in the human heart ; and with 
God, working with the Church, all things are possible. It 
may seem at times as if it were as much as we could do to 
preserve our own Catholic children from contamination, 
but, even for the sake of our own children, who must min- 
gle with the rest of the world, all the spiritual and material 
resources at our command should be employed to spread 



Equality Amongst Men 173 

the true Faith, even among classes that are generally re- 
garded as hopeless. 

Yes, it is God and His Church that must transform so- 
ciety. Nevertheless, all human endeavor should be em- 
ployed to create conditions the most favorable to the action 
of divine grace in the souls of men. The natural virtues 
must be fostered. Self-denial must be inculcated every- 
where, in the schoolroom as well as at the fireside. If 
higher motives for practising this virtue do not commend 
themselves, let the utility of the virtue in building up 
strong and robust characters make it attractive. A people 
schooled in self-denial is always the best disposed for the 
reception of the Gospel of the crucified Saviour. Public 
morality must be promoted by the concerted action of the 
temporal and spiritual authorities. The press and the stage 
must be reformed. Upright men must interest themselves, 
practically, in the government of their municipalities and 
use every endeavor to prevent public authority from be- 
coming an ally of Satan. If all the better members of so- 
ciety would busy themselves in promoting these objects, 
our modern world would be saved from an utter state of 
corruption which would make it quite inaccessible, save by 
the greatest of miracles, to the influence sought to be exer- 
cised upon it even by the purest Christianity. 

EQUALITY AMONGST MEN 

Objection. — AH men are the same at their 
birth. Why, then, are they divided later into 
classes? Before God they are equal. God is no 
respecter of persons. 

The Answer. — We might as correctly say that all men 
are not the same at their birth ; but the truth lies midway 
between the two propositions. 

All men do indeed possess the same human nature — they 
all have bodies and souls. They have the same Creator and 
are made for the same eternal life in heaven. All are 
bound to observe the same commandments. All are chil- 
dren of the same heavenly Father. Hence their common 
obligation to behave as rational beings and their common 
right to be treated as such. But here equality ceases. 

In many respects men are not the same, and that, too, 



174 Eucharist, The 

quite apart from any arbitrary distinctions created by 
human society. Some are sound in health, others the op- 
posite; some are rich, others poor; one man is learned, 
another unlearned; one clever, another dull. They differ 
in point of race, character, dispositions, and needs. Some 
are industrious, thrifty, temperate, and honest; others pos- 
sess the opposite qualities. 

These facts must be accepted as facts by socialists and 
others who set about reconstructing society. The distinc- 
tion between rich and poor is indeed in some measure due 
to the way in which men freely exercise their right of pri- 
vate ownership, some men squandering their money, others 
using it sparingly, but collective ownership will not mend 
matters so long as human nature is not radically changed. 
So long as two men have the use and enjoyment of any- 
thing — no matter what economic system they live under — 
they will use and enjoy it differently. 

Private ownership is, moreover, a natural right and is 
implied in the moral code of Christianity. No Christian 
can advocate the abolition of it. Reason itself teaches us 
that a man has a right to what he has honestly acquired, be 
it food or clothing or money or land. To take it away 
from him is to rob him of his rights and his liberties. So- 
cialism is therefore un- Christian and irrational and an 
enemy of human freedom. ( See * ' Property. ' ' ) 

Notwithstanding the distinction between man and man, 
God does not judge men according to their talents or their 
wealth or their social position, but according to their deeds, 
for in very truth ** there is no respect of persons with 
God" (Col. iii. 25). Sin is punished no less in the case 
of the rich and the educated than in the case of the poor 
and the illiterate, though it is no less true that, all things 
else being equal, it is easier to serve God in the humbler 
walks of life than in the higher. 



EUCHARIST, THE 

I. THE REAL PRESENCE 

Objection. — The Roman Catholic doctrine of 
the Eucharist cannot be deduced from the words 
of institution, "This is My body, etc.,*' for these 



The Real Presence 175 

words may be understood figuratively or spirit- 
ually. 

The Answer. — The Catholic doctrine may be proved, 
directly and indirectly, from the words of institution men- 
tioned above — though this is only one of several ways of 
demonstrating it. Before presenting any of these proofs 
let us briefly state the essential points of Catholic teaching 
on the subject. 

The Catholic Church teaches that Our Lord Jesus Christ 
— His body and soul as well as His Divinity — is as truly 
and as literally present in the Most Holy Eucharist as He 
is in heaven. His presence in the Eucharist is not, there- 
fore, a mere spiritual presence (whatever this expression 
may really and logically mean in the mouths of the Re- 
formers), but also a bodily presence. It is not the presence 
of the divinity alone, as Zwingli maintained, but also of 
the humanity. After the words of consecration have been 
pronounced upon the bread and wine, nothing remains of 
the bread and wine but the accidents. These are the ap- 
pearances, oi; *' species," consisting of the color, taste, 
shape, hardness, and other qualities perceptible by the 
senses. The substance of the bread and wine has been con- 
verted into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. 
The appearances or accidents of bread and wine are pre- 
served without the substance. 

In this doctrine the Catholic Church differs from all the 
churches of the Reform, including the Church of England. 
The most general teaching of the Protestant denominations 
is that Our Lord is present in the Eucharist only spirit- 
ually, and is only spiritually received, and that the words 
of Our Lord, ''This is My body," are to be interpreted 
as meaning, "This is a symbol or representation of My 
body." 

The Lutheran differs from the other Evangelical bodies 
by teaching that the body of Christ is really and substan- 
tially present, but only at the moment of communion, but 
that even then the substance of the bread remains. 

The institution of the Blessed Eucharist is narrated by 
three of the evangelists: St. Matthew xxvi. 26-28; St. Mark 
xiv. 22-25 ; and St. Luke xxii. 19, 20. It is again described 
by St. Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, xi. 23- 
25. St. Matthew 's version is as follows : 



176 Eucharist, The 

**And whilst they were at supper Jesus took bread, and 
blessed and broke, and gave to His disciples and said : Take 
ye and eat : This is My body. And taking the chalice. He 
gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of 
this. For this is My blood of the New Testament, which 
shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins." In 
St. Luke's account, after the words, ''This is My body, 
which is given for you," are added the words, ''Do this 
for a commemoration of Me." The same injunction is 
found in St. Paul in reference to both consecrations. 

PROOFS OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE REAL PRESENCE. 

The Catholic Church teaches that the words, "This is 
My body" and "This is My blood" are to be taken in their 
most literal sense. Words are to be taken in their plain 
and literal meaning unless the context in which they are 
found or the circumstances under which they are uttered 
require that they be taken figuratively. But there is noth- 
ing either in context or in circumstances that argues a fig- 
urative meaning in the words under consideration. There- 
fore the words, "This is My body, etc.," mu*t be taken in 
their literal sense. When the words were uttered the body 
and blood of our divine Saviour were really, truly, and sub- 
stantially present. Neither the context nor the circum- 
stances can be shown to contain anything opposed to the 
Catholic doctrine. They contain, on the contrary, much 
that favors it, and this we shall endeavor to make clear in 
the successive stages of the discussion. 

It will, of course, be urged at once by opponents of the 
Catholic doctrine that there was one very obvious circum- 
stance connected with the institution which made it natural 
for the apostles to understand Our Lord's words in some 
figurative or spiritual sense. They saw the Lord's living 
body before them and knew that His blood was flowing 
in His veins ; and hence when He took bread and wine and 
said "This is My body" and "This is My blood," they 
knew His meaning must be figurative or mystical, for other- 
wise His words would contradict the evidence of their 
senses. 

Not so ; the apostles were in a frame of mind which posi- 
tively favored a literal interpretation of the Lord's words. 
They were already familiar with the idea of a literal par- 
taking of His body and blood as food and drink. There is 



The Real Presence 177 

a well-known passage in the sixth chapter of St. John's 
gospel in which the Lord speaks to the people of Caphar- 
naum of the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His 
blood. Those who are not familiar with the chapter would 
do well to read it from beginning to end. Our Lord was 
understood literally, though very grossly so, for we are 
told: ''The Jews therefore strove among themselves, say- 
ing, How can this man give us His flesh to eat ? ' ' The issue 
was clearly one of admitting or not admitting the plain 
and obvious sense of the words ; and it was this issue that 
divided the believers from the unbelievers on that memo- 
rable day. There was a defection even in the ranks of Our 
Lord's declared disciples: ''Many of His disciples went 
back and walked no more with Him. Then Jesus said 
to the twelve [the apostles, who were afterward with Him 
at the Last Supper] : Will you also go away? And Simon 
Peter answered Him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou 
hast the words of eternal life." It was the acceptance 
of Our Lord's words in their plain and literal sense that 
saved the apostles' faith. 

The twelve were therefore prepared for a literal fulfil- 
ment of His words at the Last Supper. They knew, how- 
ever, that He had it in His power to give them His body 
and blood without doing so in the shockingly carnal way 
imagined by the skeptics of Capharnaum. They knew that 
He who had wrought such wonders during the three years 
of His public life could give them His sacred humanity 
beneath the accidents of bread and wine. 

Furthermore, had Our Lord meant to be understood fig- 
uratively He surely would have explained His words to 
His apostles, who on most occasions were only too prone 
to interpret Him literally. If it is true — and we have the 
word of St Mark for it (iv. 34) — that "apart He explained 
all things to His disciples," whilst He spoke to others in 
parables and figures, surely now, if ever, there was an ex- 
planation to be expected if any was needed. A great Chris- 
tian rite was being inaugurated, which was in some way 
intimately associated with the sacred humanity of the Son 
of God. What the nature of that association was must cer- 
tainly have been a matter of the first importance. What 
the apostles saw performed on that occasion they were to 
copy and perpetuate in the future worship of the Church. 
Was the supposed spiritual or figurative meaning of the 



178 Eucharist, The 

words to be a matter of conjecture? Were the words of 
Christ to be subject to the vagaries of interpretation which 
mar the Protestant theology of our day? Were we to ac- 
cept the vague formulas of Anglicanism, which in prac- 
tice have been made to cover every variety of belief, from 
that of the Real Presence of Catholicism to the opposite 
pole of pure Zwinglianism ? Was ours to be the plight of 
the Calvinists the world over, of whom one school gravi- 
tates to the side of Zwingli, whilst the other feels irresis- 
tibly drawn to some sort of real presence, to the belief that 
there is something there more than the empty symbol? 
Common sense would seem to dictate that if there is any- 
thing in the sacrament besides the symbol it must be the 
reality as conceived by Catholics, and that if the reality 
is there it must be adored. 

The confusion of the Protestant mind on this subject 
and the practical issues involved in it furnish an instruc- 
tive object-lesson on the consequences of a departure from 
traditional teaching and practice. 

A no less forcible argument in favor of the Catholic 
doctrine of the Real Presence is found in the bearing of the 
institution of the Eucharist on the inaugurating of the New 
Dispensation. Let the reader reflect on the significance of 
these words: ''This is My hlood of the New Testament, 
which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins" 
(Matt. xxvi. 28), or of these other words from St. Luke: 
' ' This is the chalice, the New Testament in My hlood, which 
shall be shed for you" (xxii. 20), or, finally of these from 
St. Paul (1 Cor. xi. 25) : "This chalice is the New Testa- 
ment in My blood. ' ' Our Lord is here opening the new era 
of grace and establishing the New Covenant with His peo- 
ple. The words just quoted contain an allusion to a simi- 
lar inauguration of the Old Covenant by the great Jewish 
lawgiver, a type of the Saviour of the world; for we are 
told in the Book of Exodus (xxiv. 8) that Moses, after read- 
ing to the people the Book of the Law, took the blood of 
victims and sprinkled with it the people and the Taber- 
nacle, saying, ' ' This is the blood of the covenant which the 
Lord hath made with you." And this inaugural rite of 
sprinkling with blood was afterward perpetuated in the 
Jewish religion in many forms, till finally all such types 
were superseded by their one great antitype. This con- 
summation took place at the Last Supper. ' ' This chalice is 



The Real Presence 179 

the New Testament in My blood. " Is it possible, then, that 
the chalice does not contain the blood which is to be the 
seal of the new Covenant ? Or at the very moment at which 
Our Lord is announcing the realization of ancient symbols, 
will He introduce a new symbol, and that, too, in language 
so expressive of the reality which had been symbolized ? 

If the apostles believed, as Protestants of to-day believe, 
that the contents of the chalice were but a symbol of the 
blood of the New Testament, they were careful to preserve 
an unbroken silence about it ; for in no apostolic utterance 
is there any intimation of their understanding Our Lord's 
words in any but their literal meaning. 

The case is made still stronger by the fact that as many 
as three evangelists give the same story in almost the same 
words and without a word of explanation; and that, too, 
in Gospels which were to be in the hands of Christians in 
all parts of the world. Not even does St. Paul, in a passage 
in which he warns the Corinthians to ''fly from the service 
of idols" (1. X. 14), say anything in explanation of this 
supposed figure of speech, although his topic is the Eucha- 
rist: "The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not 
the communion of the Uood of Christ? And the bread 
which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the 
Lord?" 

In a famous passage in the same letter to the Corinthians 
(xi. 23-29), the writer admonishes them in words which 
would lose nearly all their force if Our Lord were not pres- 
ent bodily in the Eucharist. After reciting the history of 
the institution as taught him by God Himself, though in 
nearly the same words as the evangelists, he adds (27-29) : 
** Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the 
chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body 
and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself 
[i.e., examine and prepare himself] : and so let him eat of 
that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth 
and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to 
himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. ' ' 

Is language like this ever used in reference to mere signs 
and symbols? Can a mere commemorative or allegorical 
rite ever furnish a basis for warnings and denunciations 
couched in language so strongly expressive of a real cor- 
poreal presence? What would any honest Corinthian do 
after hearing this passage but strike his breast and acknowl- 



i 



180 Eucharist, The 

edge that in very truth he was guilty of the body and blood 
of his Lord, which in his levity he failed to ''discern," 
by faith, as really present. But if some Reformed friend 
— if Reformed there were in those days — had afterward 
succeeded in convincing him that in Paul's mind and in 
that of the Church the body and blood of Christ were only 
symbolized in the Eucharist, or that the Real Presence was 
only a "spiritual real" presence, as the Calvinists word 
it to-day, he would, at first, probably puzzle over the ex- 
pression ''spiritual real presence" as applied to a body, 
and then begin to mutter to himself : * ' Paul 's language is 
very strong, very strange, and — very misleading." Then, 
too, he would probably feel that the obligation of "prov- 
ing" himself was not of the most stringent kind, as the 
ceremony, though a religious one, was, after all, no more 
than the taking of a morsel of bread and a sip of wine. 
If he were of a thoughtful turn of mind he would fall to 
pondering the words, "not discerning the body of the 
Lord." '^Discerning — seeing clearly — penetrating beyond 
the veil of appearances and seeing the reality with the eye 
of faith, and that reality no less than the body of the 
Lord. Ah, but I am forgetting — the real body of the Lord 
is in heaven, at the right hand of the Father. So that all 
I can 'discern' here is bread and wine. And yet that word 
'discern' seems to imply that I must distinguish this bread 
from other bread. This bread is the body of the Lord — and 
yet it is only a sjrmbol of the body of the Lord." And so, 
it is confusion worse confounded. Here we have an an- 
ticipation by nineteen centuries of the typical Protestant 
mind. 

Thus far we find Our Lord Himself, three evangelists, 
and, in two distinct passages, the Apostle of the Gentiles, 
using the same language, and always without any explana- 
tion of its symbolism, if symbolism there be. 

The argument furnished by the sacred writers is strongly 
reinforced by the clear and explicit testimony of the early 
Fathers of the Church, some of whom were taught by the 
apostles, others by their immediate disciples. 

St. Ignatius of Antioch, who lived in the time of the 
apostles, writes concerning the sect of the Docetse that they 
* ' abstain from the Holy Eucharist and prayer because they 
do not believe that the Eucharist is the flesh of Our Lord 
Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins, and whom the 



The Real Presence 181 

Father raised to life again" (Ep, ad Smyrn, n. 7). If this 
is heretical doctrine and practice the opposite must be the 
doctrine and practice of the true Church of God. And is 
it possible that the DocetsB objected to a figurative or spirit- 
ual interpretation of Our Lord's words? No heretic would 
be staggered by any such interpretation. The Docetae must 
have objected to the literal or Catholic interpretation — 
which was consequently the right one. 

St. Justin Martyr, who wrote not many years after the 
death of St. John the Evangelist, uses the same language in 
his first Apology, a vindication of the Faith addressed to 
the Emperor Antoninus Pius in behalf of the Christians. 
Surely, if the Eucharist could have been explained figura- 
tively or spiritually the explanation would not have been 
withheld, as it would have presented a less startling doc- 
trine to the pagan ruler. He says : 

*'We do not receive these things as common bread and 
common drink; but in the same manner as Jesus Christ 
Our Saviour, being made incarnate by the word of God, 
took upon Him both flesh and blood for our salvation, so 
have we been taught that the food which, being transmuted, 
nourishes our blood and flesh, is, after it has been blessed 
by the prayer of the word transmitted from Him, the flesh 
and hlood of the same Jesus who was made flesh. For the 
apostles in their commentaries, called Gospels, have deliv- 
ered unto us that they were so commanded to do, when 
Jesus, having taken bread and having blessed it, said 'Do 
this in remembrance of Me : this is My body * ; and in like 
manner, having taken the chalice and having blessed it, 
He said, 'This is My blood' " (ch. 66). 

What impression would these words convey to any 
reader, pagan or Christian, but that the transformation of 
the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ was 
as real and as literal as the Incarnation, or the assuming 
of human flesh by the Son of God ? 

St. Irenaeus, who was born in the first half of the second 
century, and who had sat at the feet of St. Polycarp, a 
disciple of the apostles, writes as follows : 

"Christ declares that the chalice, which is but earthly, 
is His own precious blood. Since then the chalice and the 
bread by the word of God become the Eucharist of the body 
and blood of Christ, how dare they [the heretics] deny that 
that flesh which partakes of the flesh and blood of Christ, 



182 Eucharist, The 

and is a member of Him, will receive the gift of God, i.e., 
life everlasting?" — Adv. Haeres., V. c. 2. 

Our limited space forbids us to multiply quotations from 
the Fathers, but other valuable testimonies will be found in 
the article on the sacrifice of the Mass; and, besides, it is 
generally acknowledged that passages of the kind we have 
cited abound in the works of the great representative writ- 
ers of the first five centuries, to say nothing of later testi- 
monies. If we compare this great mass of evidence with 
a few doubtful utterances of the Fathers, which have been 
duly exploited by anti-Catholic writers, we are forced to 
draw the conclusion that Christian antiquity has spoken 
in favor of the Catholic doctrine in no doubtful accents. 

It is remarkable with what tenacity — resembling that of 
a drowning man grasping at straws — the average Protes- 
tant controversialist clings to a few passages in the Fathers 
which seem at first sight to favor his view of the Eucharist. 
He makes the most strenuous efforts to capture the testi- 
mony of one or two Fathers who seem to tower above the 
rest, and meantime shuts his eyes to the foes multiplying 
about his path. That St. Augustine has been thus singled 
out is not a matter of surprise. It would be wonder if St. 
Augustine, who wrote so copiously and with so much origi- 
nality, should not, like Cardinal Newman of our own day, 
be placed in the witness-stand by opposite parties in a 
dispute. St. Augustine has a passage or two which do lend 
themselves to a Calvinistic interpretation if viewed out of 
relation to their context and to the circumstances in which 
they were written ; but fortunately we can afford to waive 
all contention about these controverted parts of his writ- 
ings, for it is easy to find passages in his works which all 
must acknowledge to admit of but one interpretation, and 
that the Catholic one. In the following passage (Enar. in 
Ps. xxxiii. no. 10) we challenge any one to find a meaning 
different from that conveyed to every Catholic reader. He 
asks — and his mode of treating the subject, though fa- 
miliar, is not irreverential : ' ' Who can hold himself in his 
own hands ? A man may be held in the hands of another, 
but no man can hold himself in his own hands." He an- 
swers: ''Christ held Himself in His own hands when He 
gave His body to His disciples, saying, ' This is My body ' ; 
for that was the body which He held in His own hands." 
Evidently he understands ' ' body ' ' in its literal sense ; for 
had he understood by ' ' body ' ' a symbol of a body he could 



The Real Presence 183 

not have asserted that no one but Christ could hold his own 
body in his hands: any one could hold a symbol or repre- 
sentation of his body in his own hands. St. Augustine, 
therefore, undoubtedly believed that the Holy Eucharist 
contained, really and literally, the body of Christ. The 
passage we have cited is but one out of many such passages 
in the writings of the saint. 

If we turn from the Fathers to the ancient liturgies we 
find a clear expression of the same Christian belief. In 
the Liturgy of Jerusalem, which in its essential parts dates 
back to apostolic days, we find the following words: ''Let 
us dismiss all worldly thoughts from our minds, for the 
King of kings, the Lord of lords, Christ our God, is about 
to be sacrificed and to be given to the faithful as their 
food ' ' ; and in the Liturgy of St. Basil a prayer is uttered 
that God may ''make of this bread the true and precious 
body of Jesus Christ, Our Lord, God, and Saviour, and 
from this wine His true and precious blood, which was shed 
for the salvation of the world. ' ' Again, these are but sam- 
ples of much more in the same vein. 

Add to this the testimony of the Eastern Churches which 
are not at present in communion with Rome but which 
received their Eucharistic doctrine from the Early Church, 
when there was no distinction between East and West. 
One and all they hold the Roman Catholic doctrine of the 
Real Presence. 

There is no period of the Church's history in which the 
same doctrine is not asserted in language of the most ex- 
plicit, emphatic, and realistic kind — in language which 
could never have been the expression of a faith which had 
robbed the Blessed Sacrament of all but a figurative sig« 
nificance, and had made of the Holy Communion a mere 
commemorative rite, signifying the death of the Lord and 
symbolizing His real presence elsewhere ! Moreover, there 
is a fervidness of utterance, such as appears in the liturgies 
quoted above, which could never have harmonized with the 
comparatively cold and empty content of Protestant doc- 
trine. 

Now, the language of Christian antiquity is the lan- 
guage of the Catholic Church of to-day, and both present 
a broad contrast with the Eucharistic language of Protes- 
tantism. 

So sacred was the doctrine of the Real Presence in the 
eyes of all true Christians just before the advent of Prot- 



k 



184 Eucharist, The 

estantism that the first of the Reformers, Martin Luther, 
did not presume to deny it in its entirety. He taught his 
followers that the body and blood of Christ were really 
and substantially present, but only at the moment of com- 
munion — not before or after, though the substance of bread 
was also present. But the ball of private judgment was 
set a-roUing, and even this counterfeit of ancient doctrine 
had to make way for others. Zwingli, the next of the 
innovators, swept away the Real Presence of the body and 
blood in the Eucharist and taught that only Christ's di- 
vinity was present. A strange comment, this, on the words, 
''This is My body, etc." Calvin, the third great in- 
novator, swung back to a real presence; but this, when 
explained, was found to be a real presence in heaven, whilst 
on earth there was a dynamic presence of the humanity 
of Christ: the sun was in the heavens, but its rays were 
felt on earth! 

No wonder it has been difficult for Calvinists to ''dis- 
cern the body of the Lord. ' ' In our time Calvinism, which 
includes many types of Protestantism, has been vibrating 
between this dynamic real presence (doubtless with an 
uneasy, half -conscious suspicion that it must be more than 
dynamic) and the Zwinglian real absence. The Zwinglian 
tendency is combated by the conservative element; and 
what a surprise it must be to modern Presbyterians to be 
reminded, as they are by Dr. Briggs, quoting Bishop 
Davenant, who wrote in 1641 that "all Presbyterian 
churches are pointblank against all erroneous doctrines of 
the hare representation of the body and blood of Christ, 
parted from the true exhibiting of Him." Such is the 
strange language used by those who wish to avoid the 
symbol and yet are not willing to embrace the reality. 

The primitive Protestant formulas have not, then, stood 
the test of time. They are too suggestive of the old Real 
Presence about which men were wont to think and "speak 
the same thing" (1 Cor. i. 10). The old Real Presence 
which, as we shall endeavor to show in another article, 
has nothing repellent about it, but rather everything that 
is attractive and elevating, is nevertheless, for the most 
part, the last of the interpretations of Our Lord's words 
to which doubting Protestants turn; and yet very many 
of our separated brethren have found in it at last com- 
plete satisfaction for mind and heart. 



The Catholic Doctrine Rational 185 

EUCHARIST, THE 

II. THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE RATIONAL 

Objections. — The Catholic doctrine of the Eu- 
charist is repugnant to reason; for it is irra- 
tional to suppose that a body can be in two or 
more places at once, or that the body of the 
Lord can be contained within the compass of a 
host, or that the accidents of bread and wine, 
e.g., color, figure, taste, can remain without the 
substance of bread and wine. 

The Answer. — These things are indeed wonderful, but 
not too wonderful to be true, at least where God's omnip- 
otence is concerned. ''With God all things are possible.'* 

We grant, of course, that when an effect is intrinsically 
impossible, that is, when the very notion of it involves a 
contradiction or an absurdity — it is no reflection on God's 
omnipotence to say that He can not produce it. Now, this 
intrinsic absurdity is precisely what is asserted by those 
who urge the above objection. The nature of bodily sub- 
stance, they tell us, makes the wonders of the Blessed Sac- 
rament impossible. When our critics come to this point 
we would advise them to move slowly, for they are tread- 
ing on dangerous ground. 

What is there in the nature of bodies incompatible with 
Catholic teaching? To say that the constitution of mat- 
ter is a contradiction of the Real Presence implies that 
we know what the constitution of matter is. But do we 
really possess such knowledge? The revealed doctrine of 
the Real Presence does throw some light on the subject; 
but it must be acknowledged that the unaided intellect, 
whilst exhibiting a remarkable acuteness in investigating 
the properties of matter, is utterly baffled when it attempts 
to get at its inner nature or essence. 

Is it possible, some one will query, that we are ignorant 
of the nature of bodies? Can we not resolve them into 
their elements? Have we no knowledge of atoms, or of 
molecules — to say nothing of electrons? 

Granted the knowledge, such as it is, what is the ulti- 
mate constitution of these so-called elements? Is there 
no mystery in that quarter? No? Then, with all due re- 
spect to our critic, we must say that he has not begun to 



186 Eucharist, The 

philosophize in earnest. The first fruits of reflection on 
this subject should be the impression that we are dealing 
with a thing about which neither the chemist nor the 
physicist can say the last word. The question regards the 
nature and intrinsic constitution of those smallest com- 
ponents of material substances which the physical scien- 
tist has done with as soon as he has discovered them — if 
he has discovered them at all — and which he must hand 
over to the rational philosopher to be investigated, if they 
are tc be investigated at all. 

Now, what can the philosopher tell us about the nature 
of these ultimate elements of matter ? The great scholastic 
authorities, so long as they follow in the wake of revela- 
tion, i.e., so long as they teach what is implied in the doc- 
trine of the Real Presence, can be followed with security 
when they discourse upon matter and extension, substance 
and accident. Their further speculations, deep and search- 
ing as they are, illustrate the impalpable nature of the 
subject they attempt to discuss. 

The great scholastics, of course, teach nothing that gives 
a handle to unbelief. On the contrary, their writings are 
the great bulwark, on the side of reason, of the dogma of 
the Blessed Sacrament. Our concern is, therefore, chiefly 
with those more modern philosophers who have turned 
their backs on the old philosophy and are principally dis- 
tinguished for their originality and the hardihood of their 
speculation — the Spinozas, the Descartes, the Leibnitzes, 
the Lockes, and the Kants, of more recent centuries. 

The most important thing to be noted about this large 
group of philosophers is that they differ so much that we 
can not appeal to their views in the aggregate as to a 
philosophy which in the main is one, but differentiated in 
some particulars. Down to a few centuries ago there was 
a philosophy held by most thinkers in Christendom. To- 
day, even in regard to the most fundamental questions, 
we may almost say there are as many opinions as there 
are heads to carry them. There are philosophies, but no 
philosophy. If philosophy is a science, it must be one 
and not manifold. It is absurd, then, to appeal to mod- 
ern philosophy against the doctrine of the Eucharist. 
Modern philosophy is a term without a meaning, except 
as designating a mass of divergent systems of thought. 

Among the great bones of contention that divide our 



The Catholic Doctrine Rational 187 

modem philosophers, the notions of substance and acci- 
dent, matter and extension, are among the more conspic- 
uous. On these subjects the philosophers differ funda- 
mentally. With some, extension is the very pith of bodily 
substance, with others, bodily substance, in its ultimate 
cmalysis, does not include extension at all ; in fact, it is re- 
solvable into unextended forces (Leibnitz and Kant). We 
may remark, in passing, that whatever be the merits of 
the latter system, those who adopt it should have no diffi- 
culty in accepting the dogma of the Eucharist, according 
to which, although the species of bread present to the 
senses the phenomenon of extension, the underlying sub- 
stance of the Lord's body is without local or dimensional 
extension. 

Whether one be willing or not to subscribe to Cardinal 
Newman's words when he asks, ''What do I know of sub- 
stance or matter?" and answers, "Just as much as the 
greatest philosophers, and that is nothing at all," one 
thing is certain, and that is that the philosophers can 
teach with certainty absolutely nothing that militates 
against the miracles of the Blessed Sacrament. They 
know, of course, that a body in its natural state has an 
external or local extension, requiring that it occupy a 
space of certain dimensions, and only one such space, but 
they can not demonstrate that the contrary is impossible, 
at least by miracle. Attempts to do so will resolve them- 
selves into unreasoning appeals to common sense — and 
common sense was never a deep philosopher. Philosophers 
know that the accidents of a body naturally inhere in its 
substance. Concrete hardness, roundness, and whiteness 
are not found except in some concrete substance which 
is described as hard, round, and white. But, absolutely 
speaking, can not these sensible qualities be separated from 
their substances? Can not the phenomenon of hardness, 
roundness, or whiteness appear without the substance? 
Can not the species of bread, for instance, appear with- 
out the substance of bread? To this question common 
sense says. No. True philosophy says, I know nothing to 
the contrary. 

The assertion, then, is quite gratuitous that the Cath- 
olic doctrine of the Eucharist is repugnant to reason ; for, 
if it can not be proved to be contrary to sound philosophy, 
it can not be proved to be contrary to reason. 



188 Eucharist, The 

EUCHARIST, THE 

III. TRANSUBSTANTIATION 

Anglican Position. — "Transubstantiation . . . 
can not be proved by Holy Writ, but is repug- 
nant to the plain words of Scripture, overthrow- 
eth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given 
occasion to many superstitions." — Thirty-nine 
Articles of the English Church, Art. 28. 

Catholic Doctrine. — According to Catholic teaching, 
not only are the body and the blood of Christ really, truly, 
and substantially present in the Eucharist, but the whole 
substance of the bread is changed into the substance of 
the body of Christ and the whole substance of wine into 
His blood. After the words of consecration are uttered 
nothing of the bread or of the wine remains but the acci- 
dents or appearances. The accidents are the color, shape, 
taste, hardness, fluidity, and the other qualities perceptible 
by the senses. By the divine power these are preserved 
without the substance of bread or of wine. 

This complete and entire conversion of bread and wine 
into the body and blood of Christ is called transubstan- 
tiation. 

The doctrine of transubstantiation is an article of faith. 
It is denied by the Reformed Churches, most of which re- 
ject any real or substantial presence of the body or the 
blood of Christ in the Eucharist. The Lutherans, who 
believe in a Real Presence, but only at the moment of com- 
munion, hold, nevertheless, that the bread and wine re- 
main after the consecration and are received together with 
the body and blood of Christ. According to the Lutheran 
conception, then, there is no conversion of one substance 
into another, whereas such conversion is the essence of 
the Catholic idea of transubstantiation. 

In the present article we assume as already proved the 
Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence, The question now 
under discussion is, how do the body and blood of the 
Lord come to he present. Our answer is, by transubstan- 
tiation, or by the changing of the bread and wine into 
the body and blood, nothing of the bread and wine remain- 
ing but the accidents. 



Transubstantiation 189 

THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION PROVED 

Transubstantiation is immediately deducible from the 
words used by Our Lord when He instituted the Eucharist. 
''Jesus took 'bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave to 
His disciples, and said: Take ye and eat: this is My body" 
(Matt. xxvi. 26). From these words two inferences are 
clearly established: 1. What was once bread is now the 
body of Christ. 2. Therefore, the Lord must have changed 
the bread into His body — and this is transubstantiation. 
The first of these inferences can not easily be denied ; for 
when the Lord said, ' ' This is I>Iy body, ' ' what He held in 
His hands was really and truly His body ; and yet it was 
precisely what had been described in the same sentence 
of the evangelist as bread. Therefore, what was once 
bread is now the body of the Lord. The second inference 
is easily deducible from the first; for if a thing is now 
A and afterward B, it must have undergone a change or 
conversion from A into B. 

It may be objected to this argument that although it 
may, at first sight, seem perfectly logical, it does not take 
into account the possibility of a figurative use of language 
in the case under consideration. A man might hand an- 
other a purse filled with money and say, ' ' This is money, ' ' 
although in reality two things were present, the purse and 
the money. And just so, when Our Lord said those words, 
*'This is My body," His body may have been really pres- 
ent, but the bread may have been present also. 

The objection has a specious appearance, but it is hardly 
more than specious. The use of such a figure of speech is 
neither customary nor rational except when one of the two 
things has a necessary and intimate relation with the other 
such as certainly does not obtain in the case of bread and 
a human body. But such a relation does exist between a 
purse and the money it contains. The purse was made to 
contain money ; and as the money is what the giver is al- 
most exclusively thinking of, he would deem it trivial to 
mention the purse unless it happened to have a very ex- 
ceptional value. But bread has no such relation to a 
human body. 

In the second place, the apostles would have been de- 
ceived if anything had been present but the body of Christ : 
first, because the strict and at the same time the most ob- 
vious meaning of the words required the exclusion of the 



190 Eucharist, The 

bread; second, they knew He had it in His power to con- 
vert bread into His body. They had seen Him convert 
water into wine, and that, too, without leaving a drop of 
water in the excellent wine He had made. Why not a simi- 
lar conversion of substance into substance at the Last Sup- 
per ? Indeed, Our Lord would seem to have wished by the 
miracle at the marriage-feast to prepare His apostles for 
a miracle of the same order at the Last Supper. 

Under these circumstances was it not the natural thing 
for the apostles to receive the words, "This is My body" 
in a purely literal sense? "This" — that is, all of this — 
* ' is My body. ' ' And why receive together with His precious 
body, which at that moment was receiving the incense of 
angels, common bread, infinitely inferior in value to that 
which accompanied it, affording no nourishment to their 
souls, and serving no purpose such as is served by the ac- 
cidents, which veil the face of the Lord from human gaze? 
(The Anglicans have a way of answering this last ques- 
tion which we shall consider later.) Third, the apostles 
were witnessing at the Last Supper the founding of a great 
Christian rite which they were bid perpetuate in the 
Church of God, and in the institution of which words would 
naturally be taken in their strict and literal sense, no room 
being left for personal interpretation such as the words of 
institution have been subjected to these past few centuries. 
Had the apostles thought of the matter at all they would 
doubtless have deemed it perilous to interpret the words 
uttered on that memorable night in such wise as to admit 
of the presence of anything but the sacred body of their 
Lord, which was "delivered" for them. 

The words, ' ' This is My body, ' ' are therefore to be taken 
as meaning that the bread was simply and without any dis- 
tinction converted into the body of Christ, and that noth- 
ing remained of the bread but the appearances. 

Our separated brethren should be the last persons in the 
world to go back of the plain words of Scripture ; and yet 
the Anglicans, whilst doing so quite notably in the case of 
the Blessed Sacrament, charge Catholics with doing the 
same thing. ' ' Repugnant to the plain words of Scripture ' ' 
is the indictment leveled at us by the Twenty-eighth Ar- 
ticle. Which plain words of Scripture are alluded to? 
"This My body which shall be delivered for you"? or 
these: "This is My blood . . . which shall be shed for 



Transubstantiation 191 

many*'? Perhaps they are these: '*For as often as you 
shall eat this bread, etc.," which St. Paul used in writing 
to the Corinthians. If so, we Catholics use the selfsame 
words unblushingly, even in the sacrifice of the Mass and 
after the consecration; as for instajice when we say, ''The 
holy bread of life eternal, " or " The heavenly bread will I 
receive and on the Lord 's name will call ' ' ; but we under- 
stand one another, as St. Paul and his neophytes under- 
stood one another. We know how to discern in this 
** bread" only the body of the Lord. 

The direct argument from Holy Writ receives remark- 
able confirmation from the writings of the Fathers of the 
early Church who commented on the scriptural texts form- 
ing the basis of our demonstration. When the Fathers are 
unanimous or nearly so, on any point of doctrine, their 
opinion has always been regarded as the common teaching 
of the Church. Here, as in the case of the Real Presence, 
there is no dearth of testimonies from the Fathers. In- 
deed, so abundant are they that, whatever may be said of 
the few passages sometimes cited against the Catholic doc- 
trine, no impartial student of the ancient writings can 
escape the conclusion that there is a consensus of the Fath- 
ers on the subject of transubstantiation. 

Not only do they tell us that after the consecration what 
was common food is now the body and blood of Christ ( St. 
Justin Martyr and St. Augustine) ; that the bread and 
wine become the body and blood of Christ (St. Athana- 
sius) ; that He took bread and made it His body (Tertul- 
lian) ; but many of them — as St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. 
Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alex- 
andria, St. John Damascene, St. Ambrose — make use of 
terms which are, in the strictest sense, equivalents of tran- 
substantiation. Moreover, they illustrate the change of 
substance by comparing it to the changing of water into 
wine, the changing of the rod of Moses into a serpent, and 
the like. 

The testimony of the Fathers is borne out by that of the 
ancient liturgies cited in the preceding article in favor of 
the Real Presence. 

There can be no doubt, then, about the meaning of Our 
Lord's words as interpreted by the Fathers of the ancient 
Church. 



192 Eucharist, The 

But, overwhelming as the testimony of antiquity is in 
favor of the Catholic dogma, our Protestant opponents are 
not easily driven from the field. They have brought a 
search-light to bear on the writings of the Fathers, and 
they have succeeded in finding a few passages in which the 
writers do actually say in express terms that the substance, 
or nature, of the bread remains after the consecration of 
the host! And these passages are forthwith used as a key 
for the unlocking of the meaning of all other passages bear- 
ing on the same subject. But what a difficult task it must 
be to use the key thus furnished on any of the numerous 
passages alluded to above, in which transubstantiation is so 
strongly emphasized by the use of terms at once so varied 
and yet so identical in meaning and by the use of so many 
and such luminous comparisons. 

Writers like Bingham and Pearson should have been led 
to suspect that unless the Fathers differed from one another 
or even contradicted themselves on so important a subject 
— and this they can not admit — the true meaning of the 
terms substance and nature may not have been grasped by 
the Protestant student, and indeed could not be grasped 
by any student who was not well acquainted with the lin- 
guistic usage of the times. And that the meaning has been 
mistaken has been demonstrated by the illustrious Fran- 
zelin in his treatise on the Eucharist. He shows that at a 
time when there was little fixity or uniformity in the theo- 
logians' use of philosophical terms both the Greek and the 
Latin words for ''substance" and ''nature" were occa- 
sionally used to designate the sensible qualities of things, 
— form, color, taste, etc. — and these are precisely what are 
understood by the Eucharistic accidents, which remain after 
the substance of bread and wine have disappeared. 

These accidents are a reality; they are not deceptive 
phantasms ; they are the sensible qualities miraculously pre- 
served after the substance has departed. The Fathers 
quoted knew well the distinction between substance and ac- 
cident, but they occasionally availed themselves of a custo- 
mary looseness of terminology to express an idea which 
exact philosophy would have expressed otherwise. The 
fact of such looseness of language is established by Fran- 
zelin by quoting from St. Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius, 
St. John Chrysostom, and Tertullian. He shows, moreover, 
that some of the Fathers who in the clearest terms declare 



Transubstantiation 193 

their belief in transubstantiation have, in other parts of 
their works, by confining their attention to the reality of 
the outward sign of the sacrament seemed to be speaking 
of another possible reality, the substance of the bread, 
which, however, was absent. 

He afterward remarks that the Fathers in question not 
only can but must be understood as speaking only of the 
sensible species, and not of the substance in the true philo- 
sophical meaning of the term; for otherwise they would 
be contradicting the common teaching, with which they can 
not have disagreed. And besides, in the context of the 
passages quoted, they say, on the one hand, that the bread 
is changed into the body of Christ, and that consequently 
not two bodies remain, namely the bread and the body of 
Christ, but only the body of Christ, and, on the other, that 
the nature of bread remains — which would be a plain con- 
tradiction if the expression "the nature of bread" were 
not understood as he explains it. 

Some pertinent remarks of Leibnitz, the distinguished 
philosopher and theologian of the seventeenth century, will 
add not a little to the force of the Catholic argument. 

''Oftentimes," he says, "as [the body and blood of 
Christ] are not distinguishable by the senses, the name of 
bread and wine is applied to the remaining species. Thus 
St. Ambrose declares the word of the Lord to be so effica- 
cious that * they at once are what they were and are changed 
into another thing': that is, the accidents are what they 
were, the substance is changed; for the same Father says 
that after consecration they are not to be believed ami:hing 
else 'but the body and blood of Christ.' And the Roman 
Pontiff Gelasius insinuates that 'the bread is changed into 
the body, while the nature of the bread remains, ' that is to 
say, its qualities or accidents ; for in those times the forms 
of speech were not measured in strict accordance with 
metaphysical notions. And it was in this sense also that 
Theodoret said that in this conversion, which he himself 
calls a change ( fxeta/SoXriv ), 'the mystic sjTnbols are not 
divested of their proper nature.' These expressions may 
be worthy of notice, as bearing against those writers of the 
present day who hold that even the accidents of the bread 
do not really remain, but only the appearance of them, or 
an emptv and dreamlike apparition." Systema Theol., 
Engl. TransL, p. 106 ff . 



194 Eucharist, The 

In a certain epistle to Cassarius, attributed to St. John 
Chrysostom — a document which threw Protestants into an 
ecstasy when first brought to light — the writer speaks of 
the nature of bread as remaining, but immediately after- 
ward he adds, ''and there are not two bodies, but rather 
one, that of the Son (of God) " — which would certainly not 
be true if bread were present. 

In another passage which is a favorite with Protestant 
controversialists the writer, Theodoret, explains that al- 
though the nature of the elements has not changed, the eye 
of the understanding sees what they have been made, and 
belief and adoration follow. He evidently means that the 
''nature of the elements" is unchanged only as regards 
the sensible appearances. 

And now, as to the second accusation of the Twenty- 
eighth Article, viz., that transubstantiation " overthroweth 
the nature of a sacrament," a few words will suf&ce. 

Catholics and Protestants agree in this, that in every 
sacrament there must be an outward part — an outward 
sign — which by its nature is fitted to be a symbol of the 
interior grace bestowed. Now one of the stock arguments 
of the English Reformers against transubstantiation was 
that the outward part of the sacrament of the Eucharist 
must be nutritive bread ; otherwise it could not signify the 
spiritual nutrition given to the soul; and therefore, as 
transubstantiation destroyed the bread, it destroyed the 
sacrament. But why, we ask, insist on the presence of 
nutritive bread? Will not the accidents of bread, which 
are an outward sign of the most impressive kind, suffice 
as a symbol of interior nourishment? But you will say 
there is no reality about them. Ah, but there is : they are 
the real accidental qualities of what once was bread. They 
seemed so real to Locke, whose philosophy has so pro- 
foundly influenced English thought, that they were called 
by him the nominal substance, of which we have some 
knowledge, as distinguished from the real substance, of 
which we have no knowledge. 

As to the superstition which transubstantiation is charged 
with occasioning, we shall have a word to say in the last 
article on the Eucharist. ( See ' ' The Eucharist. — Its Con- 
gruities" and "Superstitions.") 



Its Congruities 195 

EUCHARIST, THE 

IV. ITS CONGRUITIES 

Objection. — The Catholic doctrine of the Eu- 
charist is repugnant to all sense of fitness. We 
instinctively reject the notion that Christ's real 
body is given to us as food. 

The Answer. — The rejection of the doctrine is over- 
hasty and withal based on a misconception. 

Catholics, for their part, have no sense of the unfitness 
of the Eucharistic banquet; and this, not because their 
sense of the fitness of things is dulled by custom, but be- 
cause they realize the meaning and spirit of the Incarna- 
tion. Does not the Incarnation mean an infinite lowering of 
the Eternal Son of God ? Does it not mean that He became 
an insignificant and despised member of the human family ? 
— that He was mocked, spit upon, and nailed to a gibbet to 
be sacrificed for our salvation? 

All this would have seemed repugnant to our sense of fit- 
ness if it had been broached to us before the event; and 
yet it is an accomplished fact. Who, then, will be in- 
credulous at hearing of further acts of condescension ? Can 
we be altogether unprepared for other striking manifesta- 
tions of love from the same source? Realize the Incarna- 
tion, and a broader horizon will open upon your view of 
the divine condescension. 

One who has not lived from childhood in the atmosphere 
of Catholic thought will not at once feel at home in it. 
Now, among other things, we would ask any such person 
to remember that the Eucharistic feast is, after all, a par- 
ticipation in a sacrifice. The victim is Our Lord Jesus 
Christ; for, according to Catholic doctrine, the Victim of 
the crucifixion is again offered on our altars in an unbloody 
manner ; and the outward guise under which He is present 
is the ''species," or appearances, of bread and wine, which 
signify the spiritual nourishment which His real presence 
ministers to the soul. Having once condescended to be 
sacrificed for us, He finds a means of renewing the sacri- 
fice and enabling us perpetually to partake of the divine 
Victim. This is indeed a most ineffable act of condescen- 
sion, but is it not in harmony with all the other manifesta- 



196 Eucharist, The 

tions of His inventive love ? Realize what He has done for 
us, and you will not be shocked at His doing more. 

The reader will doubtless welcome a passage in the same 
vein as these remarks of ours from a very unlooked for 
source. It is from the "Literature and Dogma" of Mat- 
thew Arnold. The author, though not of course admitting 
the Catholic doctrine, has this much to say in its favor. 

''Once admit the miracle of the 'atoning sacrifice,' once 
move in this order of ideas,* and what can be more natural 
and beautiful than to imagine this miracle every day re- 
peated, Christ offered in thousands of places, everywhere 
the believer enabled to enact the work of redemption and 
unite himself with the Body whose sacrifice saves him? 
And the effect of this belief has been no more degrading 
than the belief itself." 

And he quotes the following paragraph from the "Imita- 
tion of Christ," the little Catholic classic which contains 
so much of the aroma of Catholic devotion : 

" To us in our weakness Thou hast given, for the refresh- 
ment of mind and body, Thy sacred body. The devout 
communicant Thou, ]\Iy God, raisest from the depth of his 
own dejection to the hope of Thy protection, and with a 
hitherto unknown grace renewest him and enlightenest him 
within; so that they who at first, before this communion, 
had felt themselves distressed and affectionless, after the 
refreshment of this meat and drink from heaven, find them- 
selves changed to a new and better man. For this most 
high and worthy sacrament is the saving health of soul 
and body, the medicine of all spiritual languor ; by it my 
vices are cured, my passions bridled, temptations are con- 
quered or diminished, a larger grace is infused, the begin- 
nings of virtue are made to grow, faith is confirmed, hope 
strengthened, and charity takes fire and dilates into flame. ' ' 

The author of "Literature and Dogma" has opened a 
fountain-source of right and profitable thinking for persons 
without the pale of the Church when he suggests that they 
"move in this order of ideas,'' that they get into the orbit 
of Catholic thought and do not consider things apart from 
their general Catholic environment. 

The same suggestion has a bearing on another phase of 
the aversion felt for the Catholic doctrine. One is repeUed, 

*ItalicB ours. 



Its Congruities 197 

we are told, by the thought of the Eeal Presence in the case 
of hosts reserved in the tabernacle, carried in procession, 
or conveyed to the sick. The possibility — or more than 
possibility — of accidents, indignities offered, and the like, 
is especially shocking. 

In the first place, it is not known, or is certainly not 
realized, outside the Catholic Church, that the most exqui- 
site care is both prescribed and actually taken to prevent 
any accident, and still more any indignity, from befalling 
the consecrated host. And we would ask our critics to 
remember that one of the chief reasons, though not the 
only one, why the Catholic Church does not administer 
the Eucharist under the species of wine to the laity is that 
to do so would be to expose the sacred species to the danger 
of accident. (See "Communion under One Kind.") 

But even supposing the worst — supposing both accident 
and indignity, at least occasionally — we must again ask our 
friendly critics to consider the part in connection with the 
whole. If, as they conceive. Our Lord should fare so ill 
in the Blessed Sacrament, would not such experience of 
evil be but part and parcel of all He foreknew He would 
suffer in His earthly abode? During His mortal life was 
He not the object of indignities such as no other human 
being has endured? To say that He was struck upon the 
face, spit upon, clothed with mock insignia of royalty, 
nailed to an infamous gibbet between two notorious vil- 
lains, or to say that His precious blood mingled with the 
dust which was trodden upon by His ruthless executioners, 
is to give a very inadequate description of this phase of 
Our Lord's passion, because although we can know, or 
imagine, what was done to Him by His enemies, we can 
never realize a thousandth part of what was felt by Him- 
self. 

Now when we consider that all this obloquy was volun- 
tarily accepted and ardently embraced before the event, 
that it was, in a sense, pre-arranged by the Eternal Son 
of God Himself, can we be surprised that at the close of His 
earthly career He should have chosen to remain on earth 
and live a sacramental life which would unite Him most 
intimately with His children, even though it involved the 
risk of occasional accident or indignity? As a matter of 
fact, such untoward happenings are rare ; but whether He 
endures much or little at the hands of men, He has thrown 



198 Eucharist, The 

in His lot with ours, and even now, as in His passion, He 
can in a manner bid us suffer in imitation of Himself. 

We say ''in a manner," because it must be remembered 
that His body and His soul are in a ''glorified" state, and 
are consequently rendered impassible; which means that 
He is incapable of enduring either physical suffering or 
mental anguish. Hence, whatever accidents may befall the 
sacred species, they can not produce any physical effect 
upon His sacred body, and whatever irreverence He may 
experience His soul is unaffected by it. Now, no less than 
during His mortal life. He mingles with His own creation, 
and yet is as little affected by His evil surroundings as the 
rays of the sun are affected by mingling with the mire. 
He is offended, of course, as His Heavenly Father is of- 
fended, by any culpable irreverence shown His sacramen- 
tal presence, but He is in a state which renders Him su- 
perior, in every sense of the phrase, to the accidents that 
may happen to the sacramental species. 

A few additional observations on the manner in which 
Our Lord is present under the sacred species may be profit- 
able to those who are repelled from the doctrine of the 
Eucharist by a false conception of what is implied in it. 
The material substance of Our Lord's body is really and 
substantially present, but its sacramental state is analogous, 
in some respects, to the condition of purely spiritual sub- 
stances. It is not circumscribed by the dimensions of the 
host, nor is one part of His body in one part of the host 
and another in another. It is at once in the entire host 
and whole and entire in every part of the host, just as a 
man's soul in its entirety is in every part of his body. 

This state of existence may be described as really cor- 
poreal but virtually spiritual. It is really corporeal be- 
cause what is present is the real material body of the Lord ; 
it is virtually spiritual because enjoying miraculously the 
prerogative of spiritual natures in relation to space and in 
the absence of resistance and impenetrability. It must be 
noted, too, that the accidents, or species, are not accidents 
inhering in the body of Our Lord. They are the veil con- 
cealing His presence from the senses. Hence the act of 
eating has no physical effect upon His sacred body, such as 
is produced upon ordinary food. Hence the absence of all 
that grossness or carnality which doubtless haunts the 
imagination of the unbeliever in the Real Presence. The 



t 



Eugenics 199 

Eucharistic feast contains the minimum of anything sug- 
gestive of ordinary eating and drinking; and such is the 
spirit in which it is approached that the effect it produces 
oftentimes rises to the maximum of spiritual fervor. Many 
saintly souls by partaking of this heavenly food have risen 
to an all but angelic degree of union and love. 

Once more then — view the part in connection with the 
whole. View the Blessed Eucharist but as an extension of 
the incarnate life of the Son of God on earth. And yet 
not even the Incarnation, with all its train of supernatural 
favors, is comprehensive enough to cover the entire range 
of God's designs in regard to the union of the divine na- 
ture with our souls. When our hopes are realized beyond 
the stars we shall possess Him even more intimately than 
we do in the sacrament of His love. Then shall we be 
made one with Him as perfectly as it is possible for a 
creature to be made one with his Creator. How touching, 
then, is the device by which He gives us a foretaste of that 
union at the Eucharistic table. 

*'Once move in this order of ideas," and the Catholic 
doctrine of the Eucharist will not be repugnant to any just 
sense of the fitness of things. 

EUGENICS 

An Accusation. — Every human being should 
love his kind, and a love of his kind should 
awaken in his breast an interest in the future of 
his race. The improvement of the race is the ob- 
ject of eugenics, and a v^^ant of sympathy with 
the present eugenic movement betrays either 
selfishness or an unenlightened conservatism. 

The Answer. — With the right sort of eugenics we are in 
perfect sympathy. There is a sound species of eugenics 
which ought to be welcomed by every lover of his kind; 
but in the actual eugenic movement of the day there are 
elements of which no Christian, especially if he be a Cath- 
olic, can approve. The Church has made no pronounce- 
ment on the eugenic propaganda as such, but many fea- 
tures of the movement are at variance with sound Christian 
principles. 

Eugenics (from the Greek eu, well, and genos, race. 



200 Eugenics 

birth, origin) may be said to have originated with Sir 
Francis Galton, an Englishman, who was born in 1822 and 
died in 1911. He had begun early in life to study the 
effects of heredity on the capacities of men and women of 
various classes and professions, and was ultimately led to 
an investigation of the conditions for improving the human 
species through heredity. The subject was taken up by 
others and studied and discussed with growing interest, 
till finally, of late years, something resembling a science 
of eugenics has begun to take shape and find practical ap- 
plication. To-day eugenists are so numerous and so ener- 
getic in their propaganda that the subject is at last brought 
home to men's business and bosoms. 

Eugenics as defined by the Eugenics Education Society 
is 'Hhe study of agencies under social control that may im- 
prove or impair the racial qualities of future generations 
either physically or mentally." 

The object of the eugenist is to lay a foundation for the 
betterment of the human species. But he must not be con- 
founded with the ordinary philanthropist. In the first 
place, he calls science to his aid and uses very special means 
for the furtherance of his object. Among other things his 
work is organized and depends for its success on the com- 
bined activities of many. In the second place, his efforts 
are directed, immediately and almost exclusively, to the 
bettering of the physical well-being of man. The intellect 
is an object of solicitude, but the condition of the intellect 
is supposed to depend on the condition of the body. This 
all but exclusive devotion to the human body reminds us 
rather too forcibly of the interest of the stock-raiser in the 
improvement of the breed of horses. Morality is not a 
matter of indifference to him, but he often subordinates it 
to the interests of the body; and, as likely as not, he will 
be found to have any but conventional notions regarding 
the very essence of morality. He will be found in many 
cases to be a disciple of naturalism, or of extreme evolution- 
ism — anything but a Christian. 

Such is the general aim of the eugenist. His more im- 
mediate object is to bring it about that only healthy chil- 
dren shall be born into the world. And as it is desirable 
that the right kind of children should be born, it is deemed 
no less desirable that only the right kind of men and women 
should wed. Hence the efforts of the eugenist to pre- 



Eugenics 201 

vent certain classes of persons from becoming ^athers or 
mothers. Here indeed the chief stress of the movement 
is laid. 

Certain diseases or certain undesirable propensities are 
either transmitted by the parent to the child or are ac- 
quired from early domestic environment. Persons possess- 
ing these defects must not be allowed to marry. Chief 
among these diseases are alcoholism, lead poison, venereal 
diseases, epilepsy, insanity, feeble-mindedness, deaf-mu- 
tism, and consumption. The eugenist is not content to use 
the art of persuasion, or indirect methods of any kind, to 
prevent persons infected by these diseases from marrying. 
Compulsion must be brought to bear upon them, and hence 
the State must interfere. Among other measures to be pro- 
vided by State law the requirement of a medical certificate 
of health must be complied with by those desiring to marry. 
Already in several States of the Union laws to this end 
have either been passed or proposed for enactment. 

But the eugenist does not stop here. He will make it 
physically impossible for the defective to become fathers 
or mothers ; and here again State authority is invoked and 
the most drastic measures proposed. Criminals, lunatics, 
the feeble-minded and others, must be sterilized by means 
of surgical operations. Apart from calling in State au- 
thority, though partly in connection with it, one type of 
eugenist would cut into every usage or law, even when it 
is essentially bound up with religion, that interferes with 
the physical well-being of the race. Divorce must be re- 
sorted to as a means of preventing defective offspring. 
Marriage must be universal among the healthy and celibacy 
confined to the unhealthy. The size of families must be re- 
duced by methods which every Christian knows are for- 
bidden by the divine law. 

Even the education of the young is to be brought under 
the influence of the eugenic propaganda. As the abuse 
of the sexual instinct makes for race degeneracy, children 
are to be taught to avoid it ; but how ? By instructing them 
in the most indelicate matters concerning the human body, 
but in ways, eugenists assure us, that will make them re- 
spect their bodies and consult for their future happiness 
by avoiding incontinence. 

Such is the programme of eugenists; not that every eu- 
genist advocates all the extreme measures we have been 



202 Eugenics 

describing, but that these are prominent and persistent fea- 
tures of the movement taken in the gross. 

Now we are loath to oppose any movement that aims at 
improving the race ; and in point of fact we are not opposed 
either to eugenics in the abstract or to any right form of 
eugenics in the concrete. We are eugenists ourselves, and 
as Catholics we stand for certain eugenic principles and 
methods which we believe will one day be recognized more 
universally as the only sound and practicable ones. What 
we are opposed to is the spirit and the methods of the pres- 
ent movement as embodied in the activities of many prac- 
tical eugenists. 

The greater number of eugenists lay themselves open to 
the following grave charges : 

1. They are over-hasty in the practical application of 
their principles. Seeing that the science of eugenics is still 
in so crude a state, what right have they to influence our 
legislatures to adopt the most drastic measures in behalf of 
a problematical improvement of the race? The average 
politician who secures a seat in one of our legislative bodies 
is not a man who understands the significance of such en- 
actments, affecting as they do personal, social, and religious 
interests of the most vital importance. What right have 
they to apply a half -digested science of eugenics to the im- 
mature minds of children — especially when they are aware 
of the widespread opposition to the procedure on the score 
of morality and religion? Festina lente — make haste slow- 
ly, is a maxim which eugenists ought to write, if not on 
the hems of their garments, at least on their sleeve-cuffs, 
for daily and hourly remembrance. 

2. They unnecessarily infringe the rights and sacrifice 
the good of the individual. In all legislation, it is true, the 
good of the greater number claims the first consideration, 
but there are certain individual rights that must not be 
sacrificed by human law to any prospective good of the 
greater number. Take, for instance, the right of the in- 
dividual man or woman to enter the wedded state. It is 
desirable, as every one will admit, that parents should not 
be breeders of children having a predisposition to consump- 
tion; and if it were a question here simply of a superior 
form of stock-breeding consumptives should be forbidden 
to marry. Even as it is, there may be cases in which per- 
suasion might effectually be used without indiscretion ; but 



Eugenics 203 

the use of compulsion is quite another matter. The breed- 
ing of children is not the only end of marriage. The di- 
vine institution of matrimony contemplates also the hap- 
piness of parents, and at the same time provides for the 
satisfaction of the sexual instinct under the regulation of 
law. An unruly satisfaction of the i7istinct will often- 
times he the result of a prohibition to marry. And what 
right-minded eugenist can view with complacence the 
spread of incontinence among so large a number of the 
unmarried ? 

Let us add to this consideration the fact that the children 
of consumptives and of other defectives often inherit the 
best of moral tendencies from their parents and are bred, 
under parental care, to habits of virtue which certainly 
ought to be reckoned as assets for the community in which 
they live. That the parents in question should be syste- 
matically instructed and directed — possibly, too, as a mat- 
ter of State law — in the early physical rearing of their chil- 
dren, and that the children should be secured special hy- 
gienic and medical aid, is a proposition to which few would 
object. In our day, in consequence of the advances made 
in practical medicine, many a young man or woman in- 
fected by organic diseases has been saved by medical care 
for many years of usefulness. 

Another point, one which bears on medical operations 
performed on defectives, is worthy of serious consideration. 
Vasectomy or any other such operation is indeed effective 
for the attainment of its immediate end. Criminals and 
imbeciles operated upon can never become fathers or moth- 
ers ; hut the prevention of parenthood will not hring with 
it a cure of incontinence. The sexual instinct will be left 
and will crave satisfaction. Procreation will be impossible ; 
but who does not see that the very absence of what is often 
regarded as an inconvenient consequence of sexual indul- 
gence will be an inducement to incontinence? 

The instruction of large groups of children in the secrets 
of nature is another instance of harm done under the in- 
spiration of the eugenist movement. The professed object 
of such instruction is to instill into young minds a love of 
purity, to warn them of the dangers that threaten them and 
of the consequences of carnal indulgence. It is presumed 
that when a child is taught the nature and purpose of cer- 
tain bodily functions he will begin to take a serious view of 



204 Eugenics 

matters which he now regards lightly and will develop a 
sense of self -responsibility. 

Here again it is not the aims but the methods that we 
condemn. We are uncompromisingly opposed — as the 
great majority of mankind is opposed — to the teaching of 
any of these things to children in groups, and even to the 
individual child in private except with the utmost discre- 
tion. 

It argues very little knowledge of child nature to sup- 
pose that a class of children hearing these things explained 
will not suffer moral taint. The appeal made to their in- 
tellects really affects their imaginations much more than it 
does their intellects — and that, too, at a time when their 
imaginations are liveliest and their intellects and their 
moral purpose weakest. And the presence of numbers will 
only intensify the evil effect which such instruction must 
have upon the imaginations of children. 

We are not forgetting, however, that in the manner of 
conveying such knowledge all grossness may be avoided. 
One of the methods proposed or in use is that of leading 
up to a knowledge of human life by instruction on the 
analogies of plant life ; but one thing is certain : either the 
ultimate knowledge sought to be conveyed will be too vague 
to be of any practical use, or, if it is clearly set before the 
children's minds, especially in groups, it will have nearly 
all the effect of knowledge suddenly and bluntly conveyed. 
As soon as the fact has been reached, the imagination is 
stored with images on which it is more than likely to ring 
the changes. 

Instruction in these matters may in many cases be neces- 
sary and salutary, but no small amount of discretion is re- 
quired to impart it without doing harm. Parents are the 
natural instructors of their children on these points, but 
even parents must be guided by what they conceive to be 
the necessities of their children and choose time and occa- 
sion with the greatest circumspection. Young children are 
to be guarded against incontinence chiefly by the inculcat- 
ing of external modesty, the avoidance of idleness and 
vanity, and the shunning of dangerous companionship. We 
shall have a word to say later on the most important part 
of their education, that which has to do with the super- 
natural. 

Older boys and girls may need to be warned against the 



Eugenics 205 

physical and moral consequences of acts of which they do 
not know the significance, but, again, with extreme circum- 
spection. The most that can be done with children assem- 
bled in common is to instruct them, in the least graphic way 
possible, on what is forbidden and enjoined by the com- 
mandments, but in a way that will impress them no less 
than enlighten them. Among other things they can be im- 
pressed by the thought of the consequences, physical and 
moral, of sinful indulgence. 

3. Eugenists advocate extreme measures when moderate 
ones would suffice. They favor, for instance, the mutila- 
tion of the feeble-minded and others when such expedients 
as segregation have proved by experiment eminently suc- 
cessful. The idea of segregation is to separate defectives 
from the rest of the community and place them under a 
regime that will contribute to their happiness and retain 
them in a state of unwedded contentedness. That the idea 
is not chimerical is proved by the success of actual estab- 
lishments for the care of the feeble-minded, some of which 
have been in existence for many years. Typical institutions 
of the kind are the school at Waverley in Massachusetts, 
the establishments at Sandlebridge in England, and Urs- 
berg in Bavaria, and the Gheel Colony in Belgium. A 
similar institution has been opened or is about to be opened 
in the Surrey House, in England. 

In these institutions the inmates are provided with con- 
genial occupations and attractive amusements. In the 
Gheel Colony considerable freedom has been allowed the 
patients, and without any frustration of the great aims of 
the institute. How far compulsory entrance into such in- 
stitutions would be justifiable or feasible may be a ques- 
tion, but the satisfaction actually felt by the inmates of cer- 
tain of these establishments begets the assurance that very 
many feeble-minded persons might be persuaded by an 
appeal to self-interest to place themselves under so pleas- 
ant and salutary a guardianship. 

4. Eugenists often ignore the best of all means of im- 
proving the race; those, namely, supplied by religion and 
the moral law. We make this something of a charge against 
them, because, although many of them make personal pro- 
fession of religion, they seem to make little or nothing 
of its practical efficacy or of its laws. Their absorption 
in the interests of physical well-being seems to make them 



206 Eugenics 

oblivious of the spiritual forces in human life, which if 
they were fully and universally developed would enable 
the world to solve many of the problems regarding physi- 
cal well-being by which it is agitated to-day. 

Eugenics would have smaller reason for existing if the 
spiritual and the supernatural dominated in the souls of 
men, for many of our racial distempers are the fruit, di- 
rectly or indirectly, of sin. No true philosophy of health 
can afford to undervalue the spiritual element in man's 
nature. This being the case, any system of eugenics will 
be notably defective if it fails to bring these truly eugenic 
influences into the foreground of its propaganda. In point 
of fact they are very commonly ignored. We have already 
noticed instances in which the spiritual good of individuals 
and of the race is subordinated to the physical. 

We Catholics are not indifferent to movements aiming at 
the extirpation of racial diseases; and this the history of 
Catholic charity abundantly proves ; but we protest in the 
name of Christianity against any invasion of materialism 
(and much of the eugenics of the day is materialistic) into 
the domain of man's spiritual interests. At the same time 
we are conscious of possessing in our own system of prac- 
tical religion the most effective means of preventing those 
racial distempers which are due to the abuse of the animal 
instincts. 

The best fruit of true spiritual development is a strong 
will — especially a will fortified against mere instinct. A 
Catholic child's will is trained under Catholic influences in 
a way and in a degree that are unknown and unguessed in 
other religious systems. Early religious instruction, strict 
religious obligations involving much self-denial, the dis- 
cipline of the confessional which applies the highest moral 
sanction to the renunciation of evil habits, the transform- 
ing power, in respect to the will, of union with one's Lord 
in the sacrament of His love; these and other sources of 
influence possessed by the Catholic Church, though minis- 
tering directly to her children's souls, are in the long run 
the best preservatives of their physical well-being. 

If other religions can not bring to bear upon the problems 
of eugenics such powerful forces as these, let them at least 
employ such forces as they have at their command. Let 
them use all the influence they possess in favor of religious 
education and against all forms of public and private im- 



Evolution 207 

morality. Let the followers of those religions set their faces 
against all new expedients for the improvement of the race 
which are essentially unchristian and which are character- 
ized more by haste and only apparent thoroughness than by 
wise foresight or a knowledge of human nature. 

EVOLUTION 

An Evolutionary Boast. — "In the theory of 
natural selection we have the key to 'the ques- 
tion of all questions/ to the great enigma of the 
place of man in nature and of his natural de- 
velopment." "The possibility of giving a me- 
chanical explanation of organic nature was not 
seen until Darwin provided a solid foundation 
for the theory of a descent." — Haeckel. 

The Facts of the Case. — Can the doctrine of evolu- 
tion be accepted by a Christian? It depends on the kind 
and the amount of evolution he is asked to accept. No 
Christian can accept evolution of the extreme Darwinian 
or Haeckelian type. But these are not the only forms of 
evolutionary theory. Certain moderate systems of evolu- 
tion have been adopted by scientists who are sincere Chris- 
tians, and some of whom are Catholics. It is plain that any 
theory of evolution that denies creation or the spirituality 
and immortality of the human soul is directly opposed to 
Christian truth. 

By evolution in general is meant a development or trans- 
formation, as when a seed evolves into a plant or a tadpole 
into a frog. But we are concerned here with the evolution 
of whole kinds or classes of beings into other kinds or 
classes. The reader need hardly be informed that plants 
and animals are brought under an elaborate system of clas- 
sification. The animal and vegetable kingdoms are each 
divided into sub-kingdoms ; these again into classes, classes 
into orders, orders into families, families into genera, and 
genera into species. The species has been more generally 
regarded as the unit. It may, however, have its sub-species, 
and the sub-species has been regarded by some naturalists 
as the unit. 

In the present state of biological science the term "spe- 
cies" is a word of more or Jess va^e import, and animals 



208 Evolution 

have been divided into species in a way that can hardly 
be regarded as scientific; the species being determined 
mainly by some peculiarity of structure, as for instance in 
the teeth of quadrupeds or in the bills of birds, and the 
assigning of the species being often dependent on the pe- 
culiar knowledge of individual investigators. The results, 
however, of such unscientific classification need present no 
obstacle to our readers' getting at the gist of evolutionary 
systems. 

The evolution controversy is chiefly concerned with the 
origin of species. Did all the known species of animals and 
plants exist as such originally? or have they been evolved 
from some primitive type or tj^pes ? Did the dog, the wolf, 
and the jackal, which to-day are classified as distinct species 
of the genus canis, always exist as distinct species, or have 
they been all three evolved from one type of animal which 
was neither dog, wolf, nor jackal? Evolutionists hold that 
the present species have been evolved from primitive types ; 
their extreme opponents deny that there is any evolution 
of species. 

Evolutionary Theories. — The beginnings of evolution- 
ary theories may be seen in the writings of Buffon, Trever- 
anus, the poet and savant Goethe, and Erasmus (grand- 
father of Charles) Darwin; but Lamarck (born 1744) is 
generall}^ regarded as the father of modem evolutionary 
science. He insisted much on the effect of environment in 
developing or destroying the habits and propensities, and 
even the organs, of animals. The variations thus produced 
were perpetuated by heredity. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, a 
contemporary of Lamarck's, held the mutability of species, 
and among other points of his system was the theory that 
environment could produce sudden changes in the specific 
characters of the embryo. The theories of Lamarck and 
Saint-Hilaire made small impression on the scientific world 
compared with that produced by the theory of Charles 
Robert Darwin. 

Darwinism. — In 1858 Charles Darwin and Alfred Rus- 
sel Wallace, who had each been working independently on 
the same lines, agreed to present themselves to the scientific 
world as the joint authors of a new system of evolution. 
Each read a paper on the subject before the Linnaean So- 
ciety on the same day. The following year, 1859, Darwin 
explained his theory at greater length in his "Origin of 



Evolution 209 

Species." The distinctive feature of the system was the 
Law of Natural Selection. The phrase was suggested by 
what is known as artificial selection, a process familiar to 
cultivators and breeders. When a gardener wishes to de- 
velop some valuable quality in his roses or his chrysanthe- 
mums he selects for planting the best of the seeds from 
flowers possessing that quality. Following a like process 
for successive generations of the species, he will finally 
succeed in developing what is regarded as a new variety. 
Now according to Darwin something analogous takes place 
in nature. By a sort of natural selection certain peculiari- 
ties in animals and plants are propagated and developed, 
till after the lapse of ages not only new varieties but even 
new species are produced. 

But how is this law brought into operation? It is 
brought into operation by the *' struggle for existence." 
Animals and plants have a tendency to multiply much more 
rapidly than nature can supply them with the means of 
subsistence. Hence the struggle for life, Which some in- 
dividuals survive, but which others do not. In the case 
of the successful ones, what is the secret of their success? 
It must be, says Darwin, in the possession of some natural 
advantage, though it be slight — keener vision, for instance, 
or greater strength of wing — which makes them superior to 
their fellows. It must consist radically in some variation 
from the normal type of structure. Now these beneficial 
variations will be propagated by generation; and thus it 
comes to pass that as nature is always ''selecting" from 
the best, the favorable variations will become more and 
more pronounced and the animal or plant will diverge more 
and more from the original type. Finally, after many gen- 
erations, an entirely new species will have been produced. 

Darwin's conclusions covered the whole range of animal 
and vegetable life. Even man, in his early origins, was 
not excluded from the operation of natural selection. Man, 
he tells us, is but a higher type of animal, which has ar- 
rived ct its present superior condition by passing through 
a long series of transformations. He is, in fact, only a 
highly educated ape, whose superior intelligence is due 
to ages of experience acquired in the school of adversity. 

Darwin obliterates the hard and fast line that has ever 
been drawn between human intelligence and animal in- 
stinct. With him it is a question of degree Tfither than of 



210 Evolution 

kind. What we call instinct only needs development to be 
converted into intelligence. No pure Darwinist can con- 
sistently hold that man possesses a spiritual soul essentially 
different from the soul of a brute. How seriously Darwin 
took home to himself his theory that ape intelligence and 
human intelligence are not essentially different is illus- 
trated by the sudden check always put upon his thoughts 
about the Creator by the reflection, ''What can an ape 
know about such high things ? " ( See ' ' Darwin. ' ' ) 

Natural selection, we must add, is not the entire con- 
tent of the system as ultimately conceived by its author. 
Ideas borrowed from Lamarck and Buffon were eventually 
grafted on the original theory by Darwin as the result of 
reflection and observation. Nevertheless, natural selection 
is the great distinctive feature of the system by which it 
must either stand or fall. And now, what is the verdict 
passed upon pure Darwinism by natural science and the- 
ology? 

Whatever services may have been rendered to the study 
of natural history by the principle of natural selection, it 
has been found to be notably defective as a key to the secret 
of the transformation of species, and many leading scien- 
tists now regard natural selection as only a subordinate 
factor in the process. The internal origin of useful varia- 
tions tending to the realization of nature's designs is neg- 
lected in the theory, and the necessary accumulation of va- 
riations making for greater perfection of structure is not 
demonstrated. Darwinism can offer no explanation of cer- 
tain elaborate formations which could never have passed 
through a great struggle for existence. The sight of a 
peacock's tail always gave a painful shock to Darwin's evo- 
lutionary creed. Darwinism made too little account of en- 
vironment and isolation, as well as of possible changes in 
the embryo. It knew nothing of sudden transformations 
such as the Mendelian system has made us familiar with. 
These and other defects have shattered the faith of more 
than one devout Darwinian and, indirectly, have given a 
stimulus to inquiry in other directions. 

The history of Darwinism furnishes one of the most im- 
pressive instances of usurpation in the domain of thought 
followed by reaction and rebellion. Encountering at first 
intense opposition from the older scientists, it soon won its 
way to favor among the young and enthusiastic. Its right 



Evolution 211 

to preeminence was loudly and intolerantly asserted. Fi- 
nally, within a decade or two after the appearance of the 
''Origin of Species," Darwinism was completely in the 
ascendent. Its influence was no longer confined to scien- 
tific circles but was felt in the popular lecture-hall and even 
in the elementary school. The phrases set afloat by it — 
''struggle for existence," "survival of the fittest," "the 
missing link" — had now become household words. 

Such was Darwinism within the recollection of many of 
us, but to-day Darwinism is dethroned. Evolution, in some 
form, has possibly come to stay, but Darwinism and evolu- 
tion are no longer regarded as identical by many of the 
leaders of scientific thought. 

The gradual decline of Darwinism is neatly and point- 
edly described by Edward von Hartmann. "In the sixties 
of the past century," he tells us, "the opposition of the 
older group of savants to the Darwinian hypothesis was su- 
preme. In the seventies the idea began to gain ground 
rapidly in all cultured countries. In the eighties Darwin's 
influence was at its height and exercised an almost absolute 
control over technical research. In the nineties, for the first 
time, a few timid expressions of doubt and opposition were 
heard, and these gradually swelled into a great chorus of 
voices, aiming at the overthrow of the Darwinian theory. 
In the first decade of the twentieth century it has become 
apparent that the days of Darwinism are numbered. 
Among its latest opponents are such savants as Eimer, 
Gustav Wolf, De Vries, Hoocke, Von Wellstein, Fleisch- 
mann, Reinke, and many others." (See Literary Digest, 
Jan. 23, 1904.) 

For a confirmation of this testimony we need but turn to 
the partial list of opponents of Darwinism furnished by 
Father Gerard in his valuable work, ' ' The Old Riddle and 
the Newest Answer" (p. 199), a list in which occur such 
names as De Quatrefages, Blanchard, Wigand, Wolff, 
Hamann, Pauly, Driesch, Plate, Hertwig, Heer, Kolliker, 
Eimer, Von Hartmann, Scilde, Du Bois-Reymond, Virchow, 
Nageli, Schaafhausen, Fechner, Jacob, Diebolder, Huber, 
Joseph Ranke, and Von Bauer. 

As to the Darwinian derivation of man from the ape, not 
a few of Darwin's followers have parted company with 
him on that point. His colleague in the first propounding 
of the theory of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, 



212 Evoluiion 

was a steady adherent, on scientific grounds, of the doctrine 
of the spirituality and the divine origin of the human soul. 

The overthrow of natural selection is not the overthrow 
of evolution, but still even the fate of natural selection is 
matter for rejoicing to all Christian believers. To those 
whose faith is easily disturbed by supposed scientific truths 
it is well that an object-lesson has been furnished showing 
how easily a scientific guess may pass current for a scien- 
tific truth, and how easily a timorous soul may be ' ' frighted 
with false fire." 

Haeckel^s System. — Darwin's theory, bold as it is, is in 
some respects tame compared with Haeckel's. And yet 
Haeckel's is only a revamping of ancient systems of phi- 
losophy which have had their day. It contains, however, 
one element of originality. According to Haeckel there 
is one universal all-controlling law of nature — the Law of 
Substance. How did he discover it? There was no need 
of discovery for a man of Haeckel's well-known ready in- 
vention. He simply took two laws accepted by the scien- 
tific world, the indestructibility of matter and the conserva- 
tion of energy, and framed them into one. Why he should 
have called it a law, or why a law of substance, he would 
have found it difficult to explain. He sums up the universe 
and its history in two words — Matter and Energy — though 
energy is only a quality of matter. As the system reduces 
all things to one, it is a species of monism (from the Greek 
monos, single). 

By the law of substance, we are told, all things have been 
evolved from the minute particles of matter that once con- 
stituted the then formless universe. The process has been a 
purely mechanical one. Nebulous matter has been shaped 
into revolving orbs; the mineral kingdom has sprung into 
existence, and then in succession the vegetable and animal, 
closing with man, who, with all his achievements, with his 
civilization and religion, is reducible like all things else to 
the one formula, matter and energy. God, providence, crea- 
tion, spiritual and immortal soul, free will, moral respon- 
sibility — all this is swept aside, and in its place is erected 
a law of blind necessity whose operation is inevitable and 
irreversible. 

The boldness of this doctrine is only surpassed by the 
reckless indifference of its defender — if defender he can be 
called — to the necessity of demonstrating what is so con- 



Evolution 213 

fidently asserted. A certain species of quiet assumption is 
the policy of Haeckel and his school ; and this is the secret 
of their success with the unthinking multitude. Problems 
before which the world's greatest minds have halted, from 
a sense of their inherent difficulty, are serenely ignored by 
these mystics of pseudo-science, who substitute a sort of 
* ' scientific ' ' faith, or ' ' scientific ' ' intuition for bona-fide re- 
search and genuine scientific demonstration. 

Such is the theory of evolution proclaimed as scientific 
law by Professor Haeckel in his * * Eiddle of the Universe, ' ' 
a work in which the author steps down from the profes- 
sorial chair and appeals to the crowd; and that with no 
little success, notwithstanding the fact that his methods, 
his assertions, and his professional conduct generally, have 
been indignantly repudiated by a large number of leading 
German scientists. If our readers would like to see a 
sample portrait of the class of scientists who have thus de- 
graded themselves before the crowd, we would ask them 
to turn to the article entitled " Haeckel. *' After reading 
it they will agree with us that the following verdict passed 
upon his pretensions by Professor Paulsen is comparatively 
mild: "What I purpose showing is not more, nor yet less, 
than this, that as a philosopher Haeckel is not to be taken 
seriously. ' ' 

It would take a treatise on rational philosophy and an- 
other one on natural science to refute one-half of the as- 
sumptions and false assertions that abound in Haeckel's 
books. Many of them have been repudiated by leading 
scientists in their criticism of pure Darwinism. We have 
taken special pains elsewhere (see "Spontaneous Genera- 
tion") to show that one essential link in the continuous 
chain of causes and effects required by Haeckelian evolu- 
tion is wanting. The transition from the no-life period on 
the earth to the period of life can not be accounted for 
except either by creation or by spontaneous generation. 
By Haeckel and his school spontaneous generation is sim- 
ply assumed as a fact, although there is no warrant for 
the assumption either in ordinary experience or in 
science. 

In recent years evolutionists have followed very di- 
vergent paths. Some have not yet renounced their loyalty 
to the old ensign of natural selection. Some have been 
harking back to Lamarckism. Others have busied them- 



214 Evolution 

selves with a study of the embryo, with a view to getting 
at the conditions for the transformation of species. Still 
another group are proving experimentally that new 
species may be produced suddenly, and hold that in the 
past nature has so produced them; not, however, capri- 
ciously, but by virtue of an internal principle and by 
fixed law. 

Evolution and Christianity. — As Evolution and Chris- 
tianity meet on common ground, to wit, the origin of the 
material world and of man, it is desirable to know whether 
and to what extent they can dwell there in peace. In 
the first place, what should be the attitude of a Christian 
man of science toward the general idea of evolution of 
species ? 

Impartial investigators have found a mass of facts which 
they regard as evidence of at least a limited evolution of 
species. There is nothing to prevent a Christian from en- 
tering this field and exploring it to the utmost. The cer- 
tain and solid results of scientific research will never be 
found confiicting with Christian truth, for truth can never 
he at variance with truth. Necessarily, Catholic theologians 
have been uncompromising in their hostility to pure Dar- 
winism, and at first they looked with disfavor, to say the 
least, on any and every theory of evolution of species. But 
now that scientific thought has been showing a tendency to 
right itself after a period of storm and stress there is 
some prospect of a reconciliation between theology and 
evolution. 

We have a typical example of the moderate Christian 
evolutionist in the distinguished German entomologist, 
Father Wasmann, S.J., who inclines to the theory that 
the present countless species of plants and animals have 
been derived from a comparatively small number of 
species; ''natural species," he calls them, which were the 
direct product of creation. He thus leaves the Christian 
doctrine of creation untouched. To the believer in crea- 
tion, he says, it is a matter of indifference whether the 
hare and the rabbit or the horse and the ass are related 
in origin. If the old idea of the fixedness of species should 
be supplanted by the new idea of derivation by descent, 
the power and wisdom of the Creator would not be the less 
glorified ; rather, they would be the more glorified, by rea- 
son of the Creator's having implanted in organic natures 



Evolution 215 

potentialities which enable them to unfold ever-new forms 
of organic life without the need of any further special 
intervention of creative power. 

Whenever there is question of accepting or rejecting any 
evolutionary theory, we must, of course, draw the line at 
every point where the theory clashes with unmistakable 
Catholic teaching. An evolution that entirely excludes 
creation is both unchristian and unscientific. A theory 
that denies that the world was made in six days is to be 
rejected; and yet we are not forbidden to interpret the 
''six days" of the Bible as six very long periods of time. 
The original text of Genesis does not exclude that inter- 
pretation; and in case science succeeds in demonstrating 
that long periods of time must have elapsed between the 
formation of the earth and the creation of man, there will 
be nothing in the Bible to contradict the demonstration. 
Even the postulate of millions of years, which has so 
often been put forward, could be safely granted. The 
opposite extreme in the interpretation of the ''six days" 
is illustrated by St. Augustine's opinion (or at least by 
the view that he inclines to) that God created all things 
at one and the same moment, and that the "six days" 
only indicate six grades of perfection, or six orders of 
created things. 

As regards the origin of man, we must, in the first place, 
distinguish between body and soul. Catholic teaching and 
sound philosophy require us to hold that man's soul is 
spiritual, and is therefore essentially different from the 
soul of a brute. Hence, no evolution of the soul of an 
animal can produce intelligence, in the right sense of the 
word. Hence, no Catholic can admit the evolution of the 
human soul. 

As to the body of man, Catholics are bound to accept 
the inspired statement of the Book of Genesis (ii. 7), 
"The Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth." 
As to the manner in which He formed his body, perhaps 
some latitude of opinion is permitted. St. Augustine, 
whilst regarding the question as wrapped in mystery, is 
very loath to consider the Almighty as fashioning the 
body of man in the way in which an artist models his 
figures in clay. In one passage he speaks of something 
like a preparation and predetermination of the human 
body, before the formation of the complete man, in what 



216 Faith 

he calls the primordial forms or elements (in rationihus 
primordialihus) . 

Certain Catholic authorities do not see any repugnance, 
so far as Christian doctrine is concerned, in the idea that 
the body of the first man should have passed through a 
number of stages of development, viz., inorganic, vegetable, 
and finally animal, life. On this view we shall not pre- 
sume to pass judgment. It seems to be as far removed as 
it safely can be from the more natural and obvious inter- 
pretation of the text, ''The Lord God formed man of the 
slime of the earth and breathed into his face the breath 
of life"; but it may, none the less, be defensible. It, of 
course, excludes the rational soul from the range of evo- 
lution, for that every Christian theory of evolution must 
do. 

To return, in conclusion, to Professor Haeckel's views, 
it is not, after all, so evident that in the theory of natural 
selection we have the key to the question of all questions, 
to the great enigma of the place of man in nature and of 
his natural development. 



FAITH 

A Misconception. — Faith is a groping in the 
dark. It is unreasonable to admit anything with- 
out evidence. "To make an act of faith in the 
experiences of another is a thoughtless act, 
which afterward comes home to one in the 
shape of pestering doubts." — Harnack, "Dog- 
mengeschichte," I, p. 74 f. 

The Truth. — To believe a thing is to accept it on the 
authority of another. If I should meet with a friend whom 
I knew to be truthful and should be told by him that he 
had seen a certain person in a certain place and at a 
certain time, I should accept his statement without any 
hesitation. His honesty and his means of knowing the fact 
in question are a sufficient guarantee for the truth of his 
statement. This is an act of faith of the purely human 
kind. 

This human faith is as widespread as the human race. 
Credence is given to the assertions of trustworthy wit- 



Faith 217 

nesses, and reasonably so; for a sincere and honest man 
who possesses a good pair of eyes and ears and who tells 
me that he has recently seen a third party, conversed with 
him and dined with him, may surely be believed, and would 
undoubtedly be believed by serious men. A judge receives 
the testimony of trustworthy witnesses without incurring 
the charge of thoughtlessness or levity. 

Eeligious faith holds as true what God has revealed. 
God, who has created human beings and conferred upon 
them the gift of speech, surely has it in His power to 
reveal a truth to one of their number. Should that man 
inform his fellow men of the revelation received, they will 
naturally require him to show his credentials. Should he 
confirm his teaching by genuine miracles, reasonable men 
will believe him, because they know that God will not con- 
firm an untruthful statement by a miracle. What is taught 
is held as true because it is revealed by God, who can 
neither deceive nor be deceived. This is surely a rea- 
sonable basis for supernatural faith. 

If I admit nothing without intrinsic evidence I repu- 
diate all human faith. There is not a line of written his- 
tory in which I can put any faith. The teaching art, 
especially as applied to the young, must be thrown aside, 
for it rests on the principle that the young can not be 
taught unless they have an implicit reliance on the word 
of the teacher. 

As a rational being, I accept, in the first place, what- 
ever is supported by intrinsic evidence ; in the second place, 
I admit what another tells me if I am sure that my wit- 
ness is truthful and possesses a knowledge of the fact. To 
do otherwise would be irrational. 

By those who deny the possibility of miracles, super- 
natural religious faith is, of course, regarded as folly. 
The real folly lies in the denial of miracles; for if there 
is a God He has the power of intervening in His own 
creation. Professor Harnack repudiates religious faith 
because he repudiates miracles ; he repudiates miracles be- 
cause he fails to see all that is implied in the idea of an 
omnipotent God. He holds that God made the world out 
of nothing; but, surely. One who has made the universe 
by the simple fiat of His almighty power can just as easily 
give sight to the blind, or raise the dead to life, or feed 
four thousand men with five small loaves. Consistency is 



218 Free Love 

a jewel which we can hardly congratulate the Professor 
on possessing. (See the article entitled '^ Miracles," in 
which the question both of the possibility and of the fact 
is fully discussed.) 



FREE LOVE 

A Socialist's Plea. — The only true marriage is 
marriage founded in love. When love ceases it is 
immoral for the parties to remain united. Mar- 
riage is a private compact, in which no one but 
the married couple should have any say. 

The Answer. — Such is the socialistic idea of marriage 
as defended by Bebel. How the leaders of socialism can 
presume to describe any act as either moral or immoral is 
beyond our comprehension. Socialist leaders are atheists 
and materialists (see ''Socialism," II, III, IV), and being 
such they have no basis for their so-called morality. But 
we can let that pass: it is convenient for socialists to use 
a respectable old term with a new meaning. 

Socialists affect to regard as a calumny the accusation 
that they wish to abolish marriage; but here, again, they 
are using an old word in a new meaning. In all civilized 
countries the word marriage has conveyed the idea of a 
permanent union between man and wife. Even the non- 
Catholic sects that permit divorce on account of grave sin 
regard marriage as permanent in the intention of the 
parties before the contract is made. "Till death do us 
part" is the phrase used at the marriage ceremony. So- 
cialists may apply the term to the transient and evanescent 
thing which they are fain to establish in the place of 
genuine marriage, but they can not expect us to follow 
suit. 

It is plain from the objection placed at the top of the 
page that a socialist marriage and a Christian marriage 
have little in common and are in many points opposed. 
Christian marriage is permanent; a socialistic marriage 
may be dissolved when love has vanished. Christian mar- 
riage is a divine institution, the conditions of which are 
fixed by divine law; socialistic marriage is subject to the 
arbitrary control of man. In Christian marriage the wife 
is subject to the husband (Eph. v. 22) ; in the above objec- 



Free Love 219 

tion the independence of the wife is implied. The genuine 
Christian idea of marriage makes it one of the seven sac- 
raments of the Church and thus places it under the 
Church's jurisdiction; socialism makes it a private affair 
in which no one is allowed to interfere. The dominance of 
socialism would, therefore, mean the destruction of Chris- 
tian marriage, and withal the destruction of the Christian 
family. All family life would, indeed, be more than im- 
periled. 

But the evil would not end here: marriage under social- 
ism would be nothing short of the reign of free love, with 
little or no restraint placed upon its tyranny. In the first 
place, under socialism, marriage, being a purely private 
affair, would have no legal status; it would be wholly de- 
pendent on the caprice of human passion ; and human pas- 
sion would feel itself free to go foraging wherever it 
pleased. There would be no force of public opinion or 
public sense of decency to keep it within bounds. On the 
contrary, public opinion would encourage a change of part- 
ners when affection had changed. No effectual obstacle, 
in a word, could be interposed to prevent love from seeking 
and finding its object. If this is not free love, differing 
but little from the promiscuous pairing of birds and 
beasts, the term has no meaning. 

Even if a socialist marriage had a certain legal status 
and the marital union, as long as it lasted, were protected 
from invasion by a third party, none the less the way 
would be thrown open to an invader through the affec- 
tions, which would reign supreme in all such matters in 
the socialist commonwealth. Imagine a concrete case. 
Tom and Lizzie have taken a fancy to each other. It is 
only a fancy, but that doesn't matter; they are socialists 
and are willing to try their chances ; and straightway they 
join hands in wedlock, agreeing to remain together as long 
as they like one another. A month or two later Lizzie 
meets with a pair of eyes more attractive than Tom's, and 
her liking for Tom begins to wane. But Tom's liking for 
Lizzie remains unchanged. When the crisis comes he 
pleads his heartfelt affection and argues against a separa- 
tion. But the matter is soon arranged ; they are both true 
socialists and they part in the true socialistic spirit. Lizzie, 
meantime, has felt small commiseration for Tom, as she 
knows he will soon be within reach of recovered happiness. 



220 Free Love 

Evidently, love's freedom has been little hampered by the 
insignificant legal status of matrimony. 

Is society willing to inaugurate this state of things ? We 
think not. Certainly if it once had a taste of it, it would 
soon rebou^^^rom the tyranny of free and untrammeled 
sensual pa^lbn. It is not a question of free love among 
angels, but of free love among human beings possessed of 
strong animal instincts, the unrestrained indulgence of 
which would sink man to the level of the brute. 

The principle that marriage should cease when love 
ceases is unfortunately held by many who are not social- 
ists; and, indeed, for one who has lost sight of the divine 
origin of marriage, and who is at the same time capable 
of seeing only one aspect of a situation, it may be quite 
natural to advocate the separation of man and wife when 
mutual affection has ceased and the seeking of marital hap- 
piness by either of the parties through a second alliance; 
but one does not need to be much of a social philosopher 
to see the evil effects that would be wrought upon society 
by making the permanence of marriage depend upon the 
vagaries of human affection; to see, among other things, 
how the family would be destroj^ed, how offspring would 
suffer, how populations would diminish, and how all the 
nobler aims and activities of life would be paralyzed. 

The perfection of marriage does, it is true, depend on 
the perfection of love ; and conjugal love, under obedience 
to divine law and under the best Christian influences, is 
made as perfect as anything can be made in this life. It 
is not only intensified, but purified and placed upon a 
firm supernatural basis. And even where love has cooled 
conjugal amity can by the aid of sacramental grace be 
preserved. Where much suffering is endured by one of 
the parties in consequence of the guilty acts of the other, 
both human and divine law has provided for separation, 
whilst the best interests of society, as well as of the in- 
dividuals concerned, forbid the complete severance of the 
bond of Matrimony. Even those who are beyond the reach 
of sacramental grace can by the aid of the ordinary graces 
vouchsafed to all classes of men overcome the difficulties 
incident to the married state, especially if they live accord- 
ing to their lights and observe the natural law. 



Freemasonry 221 

FREEMASONRY 

Objection. — Why is the Church opposed to 
freemasonry without any distinction? What- 
ever may be the aims of masonry on the conti- 
nent of Europe there is certainly nothing hostile 
to the Catholic Church or to religion generally in 
Anglo-American masonry, whose object is mu- 
tual aid among the members of the fraternity 
and the promotion of the spirit of brotherhood 
throughout the world. 

The Answer. — The Catholic Church is opposed to free- 
masonry because there is a solidarity between Masons of 
all countries. Freemasonry is international in the sense 
that there is a mutual recognition of Masons among them- 
selves as belonging to one general fraternity ; that there is 
a systematic maintenance of correspondence between the 
masonic lodges; that the Masons of the world meet in in- 
ternational convention; that they have a common litera- 
ture, and common signs, passwords, and symbols. But 
what is more to the point is that Anglo-American masonry 
has long since been either absorbed or dominated by 
masonry of the Scottish type, which is essentially natu- 
ralistic and anti- Christian, has a religion of its own, and 
is, in general, one of the worst forms of freemasonry. 

This solidarity is openly acknowledged by leading 
masonic authorities. Brother Pike, for instance, who is an 
American oracle of freemasonry, writes "Off. Bull.," 1885. 
VII 29: "When the journal in London, which speaks of 
the freemasonry of the Grand Lodge of England, deprecat- 
ingly protested that the English freemasonry was inno- 
cent of the charges preferred by the Papal Bull (EncycL, 
1884) against freemasonry, when it declared that English 
freemasonry had no opinions political or religious, and 
tliat it did not in the least degree sympathize with the 
loose opinions and extravagant utterances of part of the 
Continental freemasonry, it was very justly and very con- 
clusively checkmated by the Komish organs with the reply : 
' It is idle for you to protest. You are freemasons and you 
recognize them as freemasons. You give them countenance, 
encouragement, and support, and you are jointly responsi- 
ble with them and can not shirk that responsibility.' " 



222 Freemasonry 

(Quoted by Gruber, Cath. Encycl. V, IX, p. 778.) What 
is said here of English masonry would be generally re- 
garded as applicable to American masonry. Pike is only 
one of the many authorities that acknowledge the oneness 
of freemasonry throughout the world. 

American freemasonry was at first comparatively inno- 
cent, but the Scottish Rite, since its importation into the 
United States at the close of the American Revolution, has 
gradually made its way to supremacy. Its hostility to the 
papacy and to monarchy is acknowledged by masonic writ- 
ers. Its thirtieth degree is distinguished by its practice 
of trampling on the Pope's tiara and the royal crown. It 
professes a belief in the great Architect of the world, but 
discards all received modes of worshiping Him. It has, 
in fact, a religion of its own, a religion which is paraded 
as antedating all the religions now in vogue, the primitive 
religion practised by Noe and others long before the ad- 
vent of Moses and the Mosaic Law! 

That freemasonry has a religion of its own was rather 
strangely and surprisingly acknowledged in 1903 by the 
Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the State 
of New York. A certain Robert Kopp, having been ex 
pelled from the fraternity, appealed against the action of 
his brethren to the civil courts of the State and received 
an unfavorable judgment, first from the Supreme Court 
and afterward from the Appellate Division of the same 
court. One of the strong points made by the grand lodge 
was that a masonic society was a religious body, possess- 
ing all the privileges of any religious association. The 
following is an extract from the ''Brief and Points" pre- 
sented by counsel for the grand lodge at the second trial : 

*'The right to membership in the masonic fraternity is 
very much like the right to membership in a church. Each 
requires a candidate for admission to subscribe to certain 
articles of religious belief as an essential prerequisite to 
membership. Each requires a member to conduct him- 
self thereafter in accordance with certain religious prin- 
ciples. Each requires its members to adhere to certain 
doctrines of belief and action. The precepts contained in 
the 'Landmarks and the Charges of a Freemason' (see 
pages 92 to 100 of the 'Book of Constitutions,' edition of 
1900) formulate a creed so thoroughly religious in charac- 
ter that it may well be compared with the formally ex- 



p 



Freemasonry 223 

pressed doctrine of many a denominational church. The 
masonic fraternity may, therefore, be quite properly re- 
garded as a religious society, and the long line of decisions, 
holding that a religious society shall have sole and exclu- 
sive jurisdiction to determine matters of membership, 
should be deemed applicable to the masonic fraternity." 

There is so much trumpery speculation on religious sub- 
jects in masonic writings, so much is made of the meaning 
of arbitrary symbols which only a few adepts are supposed 
to be capable of understanding, so strong is the tendency 
to go back to ancient superstitions which to a great extent 
disappeared at the dawn of Christianity, that the plain 
man of sense is tempted to regard it all as moonshine or as 
the purest humbug. But whatever may be said of the 
sanity or of the sincerity of masonic * ' science, ' ' it is, after 
all, only one phase of a tendency, so marked in our day, 
to return to paganism in thought, sentiment, and action. 
The masonic conception of the architect of the universe 
is anything but the Christian conception of God, and is 
distinctly pagan. And yet how many has it not deceived 
outside the ranks of the fraternity. Though, even within 
the order, as we shall see later, the interpretation of words, 
symbols, and allegories given in the lower degrees is part 
and parcel of a system of deception practised on the initi- 
ated themselves. 

The following clear statement of Brother Pike is enough 
to show the attitude of freemasonry toward Christianity 
and all other forms of religion. The italics are ours. 

"Masonry," says Pike, ** propagates no creed, except its 
own most simple and suhlime one taught by nature and 
reason. There has never teen a false religion in the world. 
The permanent one universal religion is written in visible 
nature and explained by the reason and is completed by 
the wise analogies of faith." — Gruber, ihid. 

In the masonic view, no religion is false because the 
rites and dogmas of all religions, Christianity included, 
are at least the symbols of the real truths of which free- 
masonry is the fortunate, perhaps the sole, possessor. 
Christianity, Buddhism, Mohammedanism, are but husks 
enclosing the precious kernel of masonic truth. Surely 
there is enough in this to repel any Christian who has the 
smallest knowledge of his faith. 

If, therefore, any reader of this book should light upon 



224 Freemasonry 

a member of the craft who approaches him in that politely 
cautious way which is learned among the brethren and 
assures him that there is nothing in English or American 
masonry that ought to shock a Christian, he may set it 
down as certain (supposing the Mason's veracity) either 
that he, like Brother Pike, is speaking in some transcen- 
dental masonic sense or that his assurances are based on 
ignorance. He may not be enough of an adept to know 
what any one may know by consulting the acknowledged 
authorities of the order. As likely as not, he belongs to 
the class of ''Blue" Masons, or low degree Masons, who 
pride themselves on initiation in some Grand This or That 
without knowing whither they are going to be led in their 
possible ascent toward the top. 

"The Blue Degrees," says Pike, "are but the outer 
court or portico of the Temple. Part of the symbols are 
displayed there to the Initiate, but he is intentionally mis- 
led by false interpretations. It is not intended that he 
shall understand them ; but it is intended that he shall 
imagine he understands them. Their true explication is 
reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry." — 
(Quoted by Preuss in "A Study in American Free- 
masonry.") 

Masons, says Brother Oliver, "may be fifty years Masters 
of the Chair and yet not learn the secret of the brother- 
hood." — Gruber, ibid. 

"It is for the Adept," says Pike, "to understand the 
meaning of the Symbols." — Ihid. 

And Oliver adds: "Brethren high in rank and office are 
often unacquainted with the elementary principles of the 
science. ' ' — Ihid. 

It is a common pretense of Masons in their discourses 
on masonic science that they are the successors of the an- 
cient adepts in pagan mysteries. 

Such is freemasonry in its attitude toward religion. 
Masons themselves acknowledge that the sympathies of 
Anglo-American masonry go out to the anti-Catholic and 
anti-Christian revolutions of Continental Europe. In coun- 
tries like Great Britain and the United States represen- 
tative Masons may detest the Church as much as their 
European brethren, but they either can not or dare not 
give expression to their detestation in overt acts of hos- 
tility. But they are in perfect sympathy with all the plots 



Freemasonry 225 

of masonry in European countries against the freedom of 
the Church, against the Religious Orders and against Cath- 
olic education. 

The aims and machinations of freemasonry on the con- 
tinent of Europe are well known, and no very extra pains 
seem to be taken to conceal them. Father Gruber, from 
whom we have been quoting and who is a master of the 
subject, furnishes an abundance of evidence from the Bul- 
letin and the Compte-Bendu of the Grand Orient of 
France, showing the extent and character of masonic anti- 
religious activities in France. It is clear from these 
sources that French freemasonry aims at getting every one 
and everything under its control {que personne ne hou- 
gera plus en France en dehors de nous). **I said in the 
Assembly of 1898," says Masse, one of its official orators, 
''that it is the supreme duty of freemasonry to interfere 
each day more and more in political and profane struggles. 
. . . Success [in the anticlerical combat] is in a large 
measure due to freemasonry; for it is its spirit, its pro- 
gramme, its methods, that have triumphed. ... If the 
Bloc has been established, this is owing to freemasonry 
and to the discipline learned in the lodges. The measures 
we have now to urge are the separation of Church and 
State and a law concerning instruction. Let us put our 
trust in the word of our Brother Combes. . . . We need 
vigilance and above all mutual confidence, if we are to 
accomplish our work, as yet unfinished. . . . The Republic 
must rid itself of the religious congregations, sweeping 
them off by a vigorous stroke. ' ' 

Even worse aims than these are manifested by Senator 
Delpech, President of the Grand Orient. "The triumph 
of the Galilean," he tells his brethren, *'has lasted twenty 
centuries. But now he^ dies in his turn. The mysterious 
voice announcing [to Julian the Apostate] the death of 
Pan, to-day announces the death of the impostor God who 
promised an era of justice and peace to those who believed 
in him. The illusion has lasted a long time. The mendacious 
God is now disappearing in his turn; he passes away to 
join in the dust of ages the other divinities of India, Egypt, 
Greece, and Rome, who saw so many deceived creatures 
prostrate before their altars. Brother Masons, we rejoice 

iWe have reproduced the capitalization of the author, although 
contrary to the canons of good taste and general usage. 



226 Freemasonry 

to state that we are not without our share in this over- 
throw of the false prophets. The Romish Church, founded 
on the Galilean myth, began to decay rapidly from the 
very day on which the masonic association was estab- 
lished. ' ' — Gruber, ibid. 

The declarations of Italian freemasonry are no less clear 
as to the aims of the brotherhood. The Bevista Massoneria 
Italiana, an official organ of Italian masonry, has made re- 
peated avowals of the ultimate intentions of the order. 
It tells us that the end it has set before it is the destruc- 
tion of monarchy and of all thrones, and that the means 
to the end is the annihilation of the Papacy and of all re- 
vealed religion (1889, p. 4; 1886, p. 378), a thorough secu- 
larization of the state and of the schools, as well as the de- 
struction of the Christian family and of all authority 
(ibid). It informs us that all revealed religion is poison 
to the people (1890, p. 159), that all instruction in any 
kind of catechism in the schools should be prohibited ( 1892, 
p. 231), and that to the noble task of bringing all this about 
freemasons the world over are devoting their energies 
(1892, pp. 222, 241). 

The platform of freemasonry is clearly set forth in the 
masonic publication entitled ' * The Papal Church and Free- 
masonry: A Masonic Answer to the Papal Encyclical" 
(Leipzig). Its aims are these: the demolishing of all 
church authority, the entire separation of church and 
school, the abolishing of religious instruction, the de-chris- 
tianizing of family life, and the eman«ipation of woman. 

This is the sort of thing to which Anglo-American ma- 
sonry lends its sympathy. Freemasonry is one and united 
throughout the world, and everywhere it is under the same 
ecclesiastical ban. Catholics need hardly be told that for 
them membership in any masonic organization means ex- 
communication from the Church. 

Freemasonry, therefore, whether it be British or Ameri- 
can or Continental, is not simply an institution whose ob- 
ject is mutual aid and the establishment of a true brother- 
hood among men. Its purposes are deeper and more im- 
portant than these. It aims at universal dominion ; it aims 
at crushing out supernatural religion and paganizing what 
is left. Even the benevolent purposes it makes profession 
of are anything but benevolent as regards tlie higher in- 
terests both of individuals and of society. Mutual assis- 



Freemasonry 227 

tance among Masons is not confined to their helping one 
another to get on in the world. It has a wider sphere and 
extends to acts that involve a betrayal of honor and an 
infringement of duty. The claims of country in the hour 
of strife are little regarded by the Mason when opposed 
to the interests of a member of the Craft. So at least the 
following promise of the thirtieth degree would seem to 
imply: "I pledge myself never to harm a Knight Kadosh 
[thirtieth degree] , either by word or deed. ... I vow that 
if I find him as a foe in the battle-field, I will save his life, 
when he makes me the sign of distress, and that I will free 
him from prison and confinement upon land or water.'' 
''The inexorable laws of war themselves," says an official 
orator of the Grand Orient of France, quoted by Father 
Gruber {ibid.) "had to bend before freemasonry, which 
is perhaps the most striking proof of its power. A sign 
sufficed to stop the slaughter; the combatants threw away 
their arms, embraced each other fraternally and at once 
became friends and brethren, as their oaths prescribed." 
The Royal Arch Mason swears : " I will assist a companion 
Royal Arch Mason when I see him engaged in any diffi- 
culty, and will espouse his cause so as to extricate him 
from the same whether he he right or wrong'' — Gruber, 
ihid. The fraternal spirit in masonry is plainly that of 
a close corporation devoted to self at the expense of right 
and justice. 

Another aspect of masonic brotherhood should make it 
contemptible to the initiated themselves. Have we not 
seen Masons confessing that those in the lower ranks are 
the dupes of those in the higher? that the secrets of this 
happy brotherhood are known only to a very few? Abso- 
lute obedience, solemnly sworn and extending to every 
possible command, is not the condition of a brother making 
a covenant with brothers. It is the condition of a slave 
who has placed himself under the yoke of tyrannical mas- 
ters. 

And yet Masons are proud to exhibit the badges of their 
servitude, as though these were the insignia of a privileged 
class of mortals. Privileged they certainly are in the op- 
portunities afforded them for material gain and social ad- 
vancement — advantages, however, which most men of 
honor would scorn to purchase by associating themselves 
with a narrow clique, ruled by a still narrower one at the 



228 Free Thought 

top, to say nothing of the sacrifice involved of things that 
ought to be dearer to them than any temporal advantage 
whatsoever. (See ''Secret Societies.") 



FREE THOUGHT 

A Freethinking Reverie. — A freethinker is the 
only one who knows what freedom means. He 
has burst the fetters of religious servitude, the 
most galling of all fetters, especially such as the 
Roman Church binds upon her subjects. 

The Truth. — There is a sort of superstition attaching 
to the use of the expression "free thought." Is freedom 
the one thing necessary in thought? The great object of 
the mind 's craving is truth ; the possession of truth is the 
end and aim of all its activity. Freedom is but a condition 
for the exercise of its activity in the pursuit of truth. An 
aimless exercise of its activity is mental recklessness. On 
the other hand, the possession of truth, whether it be the 
result of free thinking or not, is the mind's one and only 
source of contentment. There is a healthy freedom of 
thought, but it can never be identified with that freedom 
which deliberately sets to work to change the conditions 
which nature and truth have set for the acquisition of 
knowledge. 

Truth is not a thing that starts into existence at our bid- 
ding. It is not dependent on us ; rather we are dependent 
on it. Our declarations of independence do not extend to 
the realms of truth. There we are subjects, not sovereigns. 
This is the first lesson impressed upon us without our 
knowing it, when reason begins to dawn. The youth must 
learn, and not kick at the goads by way of asserting his 
freedom of thought. Imagine a schoolboy refusing to sub- 
mit his mind to the truths of the multiplication table ! 

And yet a similar independence in maturer minds is 
sometimes considered wisdom. The truths of the multipli- 
cation table, though simply worded, are absolute and 
eternal truths. But may there not he other truths equally 
absolute and eternal f truths bearing on our origin, our 
destiny, our relations to a Supreme Being? And may 
there not be a means of getting at those truths? Is there 



Free Thought 229 

not a presumption in their favor — nay, more than a pre- 
sumption — when so many of the world's greatest minds 
have admitted them? 

It is notorious that nearly all freethinkers begin their 
thinking with the assumption that all these truths are 
myths; or that if they are more than myths there is no 
way of reaching them. Thus tkey actually restrict their 
freedom and throw away a clue to the discovery of truth. 
They may be likened to a man who makes a long and fruit- 
less search for an object he has mislaid; and all because 
he has too lightly assumed that there is no use in searching 
for it in a certain place — the very place where it happens 
to be. 

And yet the truths thus lightly set aside are of tremen- 
dous importance, bearing as they do upon eternity. 

True freedom of thought begets an open-mindedness that 
excludes from its consideration no possible source of truth. 
It, furthermore, makes an effort, as a leading apologist re- 
marks, to remove from the mind all influences that do not 
make for genuine knowledge, either because they are not 
fact, or have no basis in fact, or because they are mere 
imaginings, or habitual but erroneous impressions, or false 
or superficial interpretations of the perceptions of sense 
or of other sources of information. 

If by freedom of thought is meant a freedom from as- 
sumptions and preconceived ideas, it is one of the condi- 
tions for arriving at the truth. The precise opposite of 
this healthy freedom of thought is the besetting sin of most 
of the anti-Christian scientists of the day. Materialism, 
especially that of the Haeckelian stamp, deliberately shuts 
out one possible source of truth by assuming that nothing 
exists but what can be perceived by the senses, that all 
things are either matter or energy, and that energy is only 
a quality of matter. What possible ground can be alleged 
for such an assumption? 

Neither observation nor experiment can furnish any 
foundation for it. Must we conclude that the wish is father 
to the thought? No one can read the works of the free- 
thinking Haeckel and not notice, on the one hand, what a 
tissue of reckless assumptions they are, and on the other 
with what relentless hatred the author assails the notion 
of a soul, a God, a hereafter, without perceiving that he is 
a hater of religion first and a scientist after. 



230 God's Existence 

GALILEO 

See ''Scientific Freedom.*' 

GOD'S EXISTENCE 

An Atheistic Gibe. — Theism (a belief in a per- 
sonal God) would have us divide the world into 
earth and sky. Men run about the earth and God 
is seated in the skies, whence He rules the earth. 
But astronomy steps in and removes the sky, and 
with it the God who dwells in it. Astronomy has 
pushed the limits of the universe so far as to 
leave no room for a God. — Schopenhauer. 

The Answer. — Schopenhauer has not said the last word 
on the subject. God is not the subject-matter of astronomy 
or of any other physical science. It is not by the tele- 
scope that God is discovered, but by an instrument of a 
different order. The human mind, by means of reflection, 
can penetrate beyond the stars and discover the ultimate 
cause of all things. 

In maintaining the existence of God we must remind the 
atheist of our day that we are not holding a brief for the 
existence of some obscure being whose worshipers are of 
yesterday and whose worship is being obtruded upon the 
intelligence of the world. A 'belief in God is the earliest 
and most constant fact in human history. Moreover, a 
belief in God has laid hold of countless intellects of the 
highest order; and yet to-day the shallowest of minds 
brush it aside as though it were one of those empty hy- 
potheses that rise and disappear in a generation. 

Ah, but remember, says the atheist, those highly intel- 
lectual believers of the past weigh little in the balance to- 
day. They were ignorant of the science of our day, which 
is fatal to the doctrine of a personal God. 

But not so fast : a glance at another article in this work 
— "Science and Faith" — will reveal the fact that most of 
the great leaders of science in the nineteenth century were 
believers in a personal God. Science and atheism have 
indeed met in the same mind, but in our own age, consid- 
ering the influences at work producing atheism and agnos- 
ticism, the fact that a man of science is without faith is 



God's Existence 231 

neither more nor less surprising than that a merchant, or a 
lawyer, or an artist should be an unbeliever. The fact 
proves nothing as regards the necessary bearing of science 
on religion. The neglect of practical religion, lack of in- 
struction, the dominion of passion over reason and grace — 
any of these facts in a man's life may aecount for his 
lapsing into atheism. 

The kind of science for which the present generation is 
mostly distinguished is that of the experimental sort. But 
what has experimental science produced that tells against 
the existence of a personal God? Experiment can never 
land us in a knowledge of ultimate causes. As soon as it 
reaches the outer confines of experience it must hand over 
the work of investigation to rational philosophy ; and who 
is not aware of the chaos that reigns in the philosophy of 
the day? 

Geological science has thrown some light upon the his- 
tory of our globe, but it knows nothing of what went be- 
fore. History and archeology in the hands of the atheist 
have been wielded against a belief in God, and an attempt 
has been made to bring the infinite and eternal God down 
to the level of the national and tribal gods of the Gentiles ; 
but the result has been to throw into greater relief the 
immense contrast between the one invisible and omnipotent 
God of the chosen people and the countless anthropomor- 
phic figments of the pagan mind. The fact that so spiritual 
a conception of deity was carried down through the long 
ages of its history by a people surrounded on all sides by 
carnal-minded idolaters is itself no small proof of the ex- 
istence of a God whose providence is the key to this his- 
torical anomaly. As to astronomical science, it has only 
exhibited a wider domain of creative power than was 
known to the ancients. God's world is larger than we had 
thought, but astronomy has not proved that He does not 
still hold it in the hollow of His hand. 

In a word, there is no science or other branch of knowl- 
edge that lends any support to the denial of a personal 
God. Atheism is generated either in minds that have never 
seriously and patiently examined into the evidence of 
God's existence or in minds that have been warped by 
moral delinquency. Superficiality and narrowness of out- 
look are the dominant qualities of much philosophizing on 
the subject. The shallowness that begets atheism was well 



232 God's Existence 

discerned by one of the wisest of modern minds. *' A little 
philosophy, '^ says Bacon, '^inclineth man's mind to athe- 
ism, hut depth in philosophy hringeth men's minds ahout 
to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second 
causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them and go 
no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them con- 
federate and linked together, it must needs fly to Provi- 
dence and Deity." — Essays: ''Atheism." 

We shall now proceed to unfold some of the arguments 
by which human reason has demonstrated the existence 
of a Supreme Being. As we are not writing a treatise the 
argumentation can not be exhaustive, but it will serve to 
show how by reason and reflection "the invisible things 
of Him," as St. Paul expresses it, "are clearly seen from 
the creation of the world, being understood by the things 
that are made" (Rom. i. 20). 

PROOFS OF god's EXISTENCE 

I. The universe must have had a beginning. Therefore 
it must have got its beginning from a Being who Himself 
had no beginning. 

Let us endeavor to bring out the force of this reasoning. 

First, as regards the material universe, things have come 
to their present condition by a series of changes. These 
changes are still observable on the largest scale. We see 
them in the processes of growth and decay. We notice, 
too, that one thing produces another, and that other a 
third; and there is evidence that such has been the case 
for ages. Hence a series — or rather many series — of causes 
and effects coming down from a remote past. Now my 
reason tells me that such a chain of causation must have 
had a beginning. Such a series of causes and effects with- 
out a beginning is inconceivable. There must have been 
one first cause, and therefore one not caused by another 
but subsisting in and through itself. 

Let us throw a little light upon this conclusion by an 
illustration. My eyes are at this moment resting upon an 
oak-tree. Let us designate it by the letter A. Now A is 
the offspring of another oak, B, which in turn owes its 
origin to C, and so on, back to D, E, and the rest. Is the 
series infinite, that is to say, endless? Or is it composed 
of a finite number — one that can be counted? We assert 



God's Existence 233 

that it can not be infinite — it must have had a beginning. 
And our reasons for the assertion are these: 

1. If it were infinite the series would never have come 
down to A. Let us prove this. Let us go back to E, fa- 
miliar to the eyes of our great-great-grandfathers. Was 
the series infinite when it reached E ? There is as much or 
as little reason for saying that it was infinite then as for 
saying that it is infinite now. But if infinite then, not a 
single oak could have been added to it ; for an infinite num- 
ber can not receive any addition; and therefore E could 
not have propagated its kind, and we should not now be 
contemplating A, which nevertheless stands before us in 
all its beauty. Therefore the series was not infinite — there 
must have been a first oak, unproduced by any other. 

2. Again, if the series were infinite, A would be the last 
of its race — and hence, by the way, would be an object 
of the greatest curiosity; but what an absurdity to sup- 
pose than an acorn falling from A might not produce a 
tree of the same species. The series of oaks was, there- 
fore, not endless, and there was one tree that began the 
series. 

The reader will remember that we are dealing with the 
genealogy of oaks only as an illustration of a principle; 
and the principle is that no chain of causes and effects is 
possible unless there be a first cause — one unproduced by 
another. But if this principle is once fairly established 
the conclusion is irresistible that if we trace the numerous 
series of causes and effects that have made the world what 
it is to-day back to their beginning, we must arrive at a 
first cause, which has not been produced by another. 

And now, having arrived at a first cause of things, we 
must evolve the idea of a first cause and exhibit what is 
logically contained in it. We shall see ultimately that the 
First Cause is identical with the sovereign God whose 
existence it is our purpose to prove. 

The First Cause was not produced by another. How, 
then, are we to account for its existence? Did it produce 
itself? Or did it start out of nothingness of itself? Both 
questions are too absurd to be considered. If, therefore, 
the First Cause was not produced either by itself or by 
anything else, we must conclude that it was not produced 
at all. Its existence is due to no manner of causation 
whatever; and hence we are forced to the further conclu- 



234 God's Existence 

sion that it must have its reason for existing in its very 
nature. Its nature requires it to exist. But if its nature 
requires it to exist it can not be conceived as non-existent. 
In other words, it is eternal. This, by the way, is an an- 
swer to Darwin's feeble question, Whence came the First 
Cause, and how did it arise? — (See "Darwin.") 
' And now a few further deductions. The First Cause, 
as we have seen, exists by a necessity of its nature. But 
if a thing exists at all it must have some determinate form 
or mode of existence. A thing does not exist in general, 
but as this or that in particular, and with a definite nature 
and definite attributes. Hence when we ascribe essential 
and necessary existence to a being, we ascribe it to that 
being such as it is, and as having a certain nature and 
certain attributes. Hence its nature and attributes — or 
all that it is and whatever it is — partake of the same neces- 
sity as its existence. Therefore such a being is immutable ; 
for any change would make it different from what it neces- 
sarily and essentially is. Later on we shall see other rea- 
sons why any change, whether in essentials or in acciden- 
tals, is impossible. 

At every step we are getting a better glimpse of the 
wonderful ideas which are wrapped up in the one idea of 
the First Cause. There are more to come. 

The next deduction is the most important of all. It is, 
that the First Cause must possess unlimited being or un- 
limited perfection — it must be infinite. We shall not re- 
hearse here the more abstruse metaphysical proofs of this 
thesis. A few simpler considerations will suffice to show 
that the First Cause is infinitely perfect. First, the very 
fact that it is a self -existent being is proof sufficient. What 
higher perfection is conceivable than that the very nature 
of a thing requires it to exist? or, to put it somewhat 
differently, ''what higher grade of existence can we con- 
ceive than that in virtue of which a thing possesses its be- 
ing of itself from eternity?" (Wilmers.) Among created 
beings we admire a person who is in some degree indepen- 
dent of outside influences in the development of some per- 
sonal perfection ; when, for instance, he adds to his knowl- 
edge by thinking out for himself the solution of the most 
intricate problems. And the higher the perfection evolved 
the greater our admiration. What, then, shall we say of 
that being which has, hy a necessity of its nature, not any 



God^s Existence 235 

mere power of self-development, but that which in any case 
is the basis and groundwork of all actual perfection, even 
the highest, viz., actual being or existence? Any specific 
perfection, finite or infinite, in any being, supposes the ex- 
istence of that being ; and hence existence, or actual being, 
must be the basis and condition of any perfection, even 
though it be infinite. Therefore seZ/-existence must itself 
be an infinite perfection. But no infinite perfection can 
exist in a finite being. Therefore the First Cause is in- 
finite. 

In the second place, we can deduce the infinite perfec- 
tion of the First Cause from the nature of the act by which 
it brings things into existence. The First Cause simply 
creates, or produces things out of nothing. This may be 
argued from the very fact that it is the First Cause, but 
the deduction will be made clearer at a later stage of the 
discussion. Now, any single act of creation is a proof of 
infinite power. For, by infinite power we mean power so 
great that no finite thing, no matter how perfect, and no 
degree of perfection in a thing, are beyond its range. But 
the First Cause confers upon the thing created its very 
heing; and to create the very being of a thing argues 
greater power than to create any specific perfection in it; 
for the perfections or attributes of a thing are but modes 
of its being. Hence no conceivable perfection in a thing 
exceeds the creative power of the First Cause, and there- 
fore its power is unlimited. 

Furthermore, if we limit the creative power of the First 
Cause we imply that some things are too great to be in- 
cluded within its range; but a little reflection will show 
that in this connection greater and less are virtually one 
thing. No greater exercise of power is involved in the 
creation of greater things than in the creation of lesser. As 
to create is to produce out of nothing, there is no process 
to be gone through; there is no existing matter to work 
upon; and hence creating is simply willing: ''Let there be 
light ; and light was made ' ' ; and consequently so far as 
the creating agent is concerned it is as easy to will a uni- 
verse as to will a grain of sand. And on the side of the 
object to be created the task of creating can not be greater 
in one case than in another, as all things created are simply 
drawn from nothing, and are thus reduced to the same 
level. 



236 God^s Existence 

•^ Therefore there can be nothing so great or so perfect as 
to be beyond the creative power of the First Cause. There- 
fore its power is limitless or in-finite. And here again we 
can argue from an infinite attribute to an infinitude of be- 
ing or of perfection. 

In the process we have been following thus far we have 
traced all the series of changes that have taken place in 
the universe to their beginning and have arrived at a First 
Cause in which all things have their origin. Now there 
is a class of atheists — certain materialists — who admit that 
there must have been a beginning of all change, but who 
are pleased to find the ultimate cause of all change in mat- 
ter. They assume, without proof, that material substance 
existed from all eternity, uncaused and self-subsisting, 
needing no God to have created or preserved it or unfolded 
its energies, and having in itself the germ of all its future 
activities. But it will not be difficult to show that self- 
subsisting and self -evolving matter is an impossibility. 

First, it is impossible that matter could have evolved 
its own energies. For, primeval self-existing matter must 
originally have been either in a state of rest or in a state 
of motion. If in a state of motion, there must have been 
a beginning of the motion; for motion from eternity in- 
volves all the absurdities included in the notion of an infi- 
nite series of causes and effects. Hence our supposed 
primeval matter must have been originally in a quiescent 
state. Let us realize what this implies. Imagine a par- 
ticle of primitive matter suspended in space — quiet but 
capable of motion. What will set it in motion? The law 
of inertia is there to forbid it to move a fraction of an inch 
unless acted upon by some outside force. Primeval mat- 
ter would therefore stand in need of some external cause 
of motion. And what we say of local motion is true of 
every form of activity and of every exertion of energy. 
It must have a beginning, and the beginning must originate 
from without. For, in the first place, no exertion of energy 
in matter is possible without some local motion. But the 
local motion can not be spontaneous, for the law of inertia 
forbids it. In the second place and apart from the law of 
inertia, there is nothing in the attributes of matter that 
could enable it to exert its energies. Imagine a particle of 
quiescent matter a moment before its first display of 



God^s Existence 237 

energy. What can possibly determine it to act in the next 
moment rather than five minutes — or, for that matter, five 
centuries — later? Is it in the power of matter to choose 
the moment of its awakening from its eternal slumber ? It 
would be puerile to suppose that matter was predeter- 
mined to act in some such way as the hammer of an alarm- 
clock is predetermined to act by the winding and setting 
of the clock. In the case of the alarm-clock the alarm-bell 
displays its energj^ at a certain moment, but its action sup- 
poses a continuous mechanical movement preceding and 
leading up to it; and even that would be impossible with- 
out the action of the human hand that wound up the clock. 
There is nothing in matter that can give the first impulse 
to its activities. The impulse must be imparted by One in 
whom mind and will make Him independent of time — or, 
to put it more accurately, enable Him to make a beginning 
of time by setting things in motion. 

Matter, therefore, depends for its activity upon a Sov- 
ereign Artificer. But does it depend upon Him also for 
its existence? May not matter have had an eternal and 
independent existence of its own? 

We answer. No; because self -existence would be incom- 
patible with its nature and its attributes. Self-existent 
matter must have had some determinate state or condition 
of existence. To begin with, it must have been either in a 
state of rest or in a state of motion. But we know that of 
itself matter can not determine its existing in either state. 
It is indifferent to either and must be set in motion or be 
brought to a state of rest by outside influences. But as 
it must be in either of the two states and yet can not of 
itself be in either, it can not exist at all unless existence 
be given it by some external cause. It requires, in a word, 
to be created. And thus the First Cause appears under 
the aspect of a Creator. And what is true of rest and 
motion is true of other conditions of matter. Matter must 
be either in a solid or in a liquid or in a gaseous state. It 
must also be in a definite place. But matter is of itself in- 
different to all these conditions taken severally, though by 
external causes it may be made to pass from one condition 
to another. Therefore, as self -existence would argue self- 
determination as regards these conditions, matter can not 
be self-existent and must have been created. 



238 God's Existence 

In the second place, if matter were self-existent it would 
be incapable of change ; and yet we know it to be change- 
able from one form or condition to another. 

It must now be evident that the First Cause possesses 
the nature and the attributes which we ascribe to God. It 
(or rather He) is self -existent and eternal. He is infinitely 
perfect, and is therefore infinitely powerful and infinitely 
wise (or intelligent), though His infinite wisdom and 
power may be deduced also from the creative act. He is 
the Creator of the visible universe, and is therefore its 
sovereign Lord and Master. 

That there can be only one such Being is evident from 
the fact that He is infinite. The Infinite must comprehend 
all being, and hence there can be but One who is infinite. 
In saying, however, that the Infinite embraces all being we 
must distinguish between two senses in which the proposi- 
tion may be taken. To use the language of theologians, 
God contains all things in Himself either formally — that is 
to say, as things are in themselves — or eminently; that is, 
in some higher or more excellent sense. Formally, He pos- 
sesses all His own essential and infinite attributes; emi- 
nently. He possesses the perfections belonging to created 
beings. If those perfections are of the spiritual order, 
He possesses them in an infinite degree and in a way that 
makes them one with His divine essence, which is not true 
of created things. Goodness, wisdom, and power, which 
may belong to created things, are possessed by God in an 
infinite degree and without any admixture of imperfection. 
The qualities of matter He can not possess formally, as that 
would argue limitation and imperfection; but even these 
qualities, as well as all other attributes of finite things, may 
be said to be in God eminently inasmuch as the eternal 
exemplars of things are conceived by the divine intelli- 
gence and His omnipotence enables Him to bring them 
into existence. 

There is only one God, therefore, and only one Creator, 
and consequently only one source of finite being, whether 
of the spiritual or of the material order. 

II. But the argument from causation is not the only one 
by which God's existence is proved. The argument from 
design, as it is generally termed, is no less cogent. It is 
based on the order and beauty of the universe. Order, 
especially on a large scale, can not be a result of chance, 



God's Existence 239 

nor can it be produced by a blind and purposeless com- 
bination of forces. Order supposes a mind at work, and 
a mind working according to plan. Now the presence of 
order in the world is easily observed. It is noticed, for 
instance, that many things work together for a common 
end — as, for example, in the orderly recurrence of the sea- 
sons — a fact that includes so many interesting phenomena 
connected with the preservation of animal and vegetable 
life. Everywhere we see in things the purposes for which 
they were made. A study of the human body, for instance, 
reveals a wonderful adaptation of means to ends; every 
organ being most aptly designed to serve a distinctive pur- 
pose of its own. The human eye alone furnishes over- 
whelming evidence of the presence of design. But a design 
supposes a designer. 

And here, too, we find that the Great Designer is not 
merely an artist working in materials ready to His hand. 
He gives things their very natures and all their properties. 
For in all the operations of nature that furnish evidence 
of design there is a dependence on the natural properties 
of things, and the natural properties of things must be 
rooted in their natures. It is indeed by reason of the nat- 
ural essences and qualities of things that nature works out 
her grand exhibitions of design. It is because the natures 
of things conspire so perfectly and so intimately with 
the general plan that they must be pronounced to have the 
same origin as the plan itself. The origin of all things 
and of their attributes must therefore be the Great First 
Cause whom we call God. 

So much — and indeed much more which our limited 
space must exclude — does our reason tell us about the ex- 
istence and the attributes of the Supreme Being. But 
reason is not our only teacher. God Himself has deigned 
to teach us by direct revelation. He has made Himself 
known to man from the very beginning; and the history 
of His revelation, carefully preserved, contains within 
itself its own credentials. The long but consistent narra- 
tive of the career of the chosen people given in the Bible — 
a people marvelously preserved in their purity of belief 
and worship amidst pagan surroundings, till led finally to 
the fulness of revelation in the life and teachings of Jesus 
of Nazareth — possesses an irresistible power of conviction 
to those who will take the pains to read it and ponder it 



240 Grace 

in its entirety and compare it with any other history, 
sacred or profane. 

The parts of that wonderful narrative are all of a piece ; 
one idea and one spirit dominate the whole : God revealing 
Himself by degrees and divine promises fulfilled at the 
appointed time — this is the prevailing note heard in every 
part of the grand symphony, which finally reaches its cli- 
max in the wonderful life of the God-Man. The life of 
Jesus, taken in its entire compass and properly related to 
all that had gone before it and to all that has happened 
since, has thus become the key to the world's history and 
has confirmed in the minds of untold millions their faith 
in the existence of the infinite and eternal God. 

GOOD WORKS 

Objection. — Good works are not necessary for 
salvation, for St. Paul says : "We account a man 
to be justified by faith alone, without the works 
of the Law" (Rom. iii. 28). 

The Answer. — That is not what St. Paul said, but what 
Luther represented him as saying, in his German transla- 
tion of the Bible ; for in the original text the word *' alone'' 
is not found. The word was introduced to give support 
to Luther's new doctrine on Justification. Besides, St. 
Paul is here speaking, not of the good works of the Chris- 
tian religion, but of the ceremonial observances of the Jew- 
ish Law — the various forms of purification, bloody sacri- 
fices, and the like. 

Objection. — But man is perverted and sinful, and there- 
fore can perform no genuine good works. 

Answer. — Man can perform no good works, at least 
works availing to salvation, without Christ ; but with Christ 
he can; for in the Gospel of St. John (xv. 5) we are told 
by Christ Himself: ''I am the vine, you are the branches. 
He that abideth in Me and I in him, the same beareth much 
fruit." (See ''Justification.") 

GRACE 

Objection. — Catholics are forever speaking of 
the necessity of grace. "Without grace I can do 
nothing," is the common formula ; and yet I can 



Grace 241 

do many a good deed without feeling the need of 
God*s help. 

The Answer. — The Catholic teaching on the subject is 
that without divine grace I can do nothing that avails to 
salvation; that is to say, that although I can do many 
things that are good without grace, I can not do that kind 
of good that merits heaven. The kingdom of heaven, as 
Christ teaches, is promised as the reward of our labor in 
this life. (Cf. the parable of the workers in the vineyard. 
Matt. XX.) Heaven must be fixed as the goal of our pres- 
ent existence; we must so live in this life as to be entitled 
to possess God in the next. 

The end set before me is a supernatural one. The faith 
by which I apprehend it is supernatural, as my natural 
powers could never have brought me to a knowledge of it ; 
and hence the need of grace; and the faith planted in the 
soul by grace is made a living faith by the further action 
of grace and produces the ripe fruits of hope and charity. 

The giving of an alms by an unbeliever is a good work 
of the purely natural order, and God may deign to reward 
it, but it has no merit as far as heaven is concerned. The 
motive is not supernatural, nor is it the fruit of supernat- 
ural faith. It is God's will that I should live by faith. 
''The just man liveth by faith" (Galat. iii. 11). ''With- 
out faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. xi. 6). 

There is a good deal of truth in the assertion that Cath- 
olics are forever speaking of the necessity of grace; and 
would that non- Catholics knew more of its necessity and 
felt more of its power. Grace would then be the solution 
of many problems which to-day are not even half solved. 
Divorce, with re-marriage after divorce, is not even a half- 
solution of the problem how to secure a happy union in 
wedlock, for it brings worse evils than it is designed to 
prevent; whereas the sacramental grace of a truly Chris- 
tian marriage works miracles of harmonization between 
otherwise discordant hearts in the married state. The 
grace of the sacraments has vastly helped us in the solution 
of the problem regarding the formation of the Christian 
character in the souls of the young. 

Catholics can not say too much about the need and the 
power of divine grace. The consequences of the ignoring 
of grace are only too evident. 



242 Haeckel 

HAECKEL 

On the Tripod. — The development of the in- 
dividual life from the embryo form is but a repre- 
sentation in little of the development of the en- 
tire species from a primitive form. This is that 
"irrefragable law which is the heaviest piece of 
artillery made to do battle for the truth. Under 
its repeated assaults the magnificent fabric of 
the Roman hierarchy will tumble like a house of 
cards." — Haeckel. 

The Truth about Haeckel. — Possibly some of our 
readers will ask, who, or what, is Haeckel? Others will 
doubtless have heard of him as a German professor of 
some notoriety whose books have had no little vogue in 
English-speaking countries. Some few years ago a cheap 
edition of one of Haeckel's books entitled ' ' Weltratsel' ' 
(English title, ''The Riddle of the Universe' ') sold by the 
hundred thousand in England, and many an unknowing 
reader had the pleasure of tasting a sample of what he 
was told was German science — the genuine article, from 
the workshop of the best producer of the commodity to be 
found in all Germany. 

Haeckel, it must be admitted, has done some very meri- 
torious work in his own special department of natural his- 
tory, but for many years he has been impelled by an irre- 
sistible impulse to step out of his own legitimate province 
and play the role of philosopher. This has been the mis- 
take of his life; for not only has he disgraced himself in 
the field of higher speculation, but even among his brother 
scientists, by reason of his charlatan spirit and his daring 
frauds (recently confessed by himself), he has covered him- 
self with well-deserved obloquy. 

In his ''Weltratsel" he attempts to solve what he calls 
the riddle of the universe — that is to say, to account for 
the world as we find it and trace all things back to their 
origin and to their ultimate elements. His philosophy is 
materialistic. All things consist of matter and all have 
been evolved out of primitive forms of matter by virtue of 
a certain energy, which is an inherent quality of matter. 
The spiritual, in any right sense of the word, has no place 
in the system. God, soul, immortality, are all relegated to 
the region of myths. 



Eaeckel 243 

The style in which the subject is treated by this would- 
be philosopher is of the quietly oracular kind. His treatise, 
so to style it, is a continuous stream of placidly self-confi- 
dent assertion. He argues or discusses as little as a prophet. 
Viewed under another aspect the book is an undigni- 
fied appeal to the crowd. We may confidently assert that 
any other man of science who had a reputation to make 
or unmake would resent the imputation of being considered 
its author. For our part, we should never have mentioned 
his name in these pages had not the powers of darkness 
made use of his reputation as a German scientist to poison 
the minds of thousands of unwary readers in English- 
speaking countries. 

Some lines above we alluded to certain frauds associated 
with the name of Ernst Haeckel. They belong to the 
category of deadly sins which are never forgiven the man 
of science. They consisted in a deliberate misrepresenta- 
tion of facts. The ordinary student depends on the origi- 
nal investigator for a knowledge of facts; and facts are 
the very basis of all physical science. Hence a professor 
who knowingly distorts the facts presented to his pupils 
saps the foundation of science. This in a flagrant form is 
the offense of Ernst Haeckel. The circumstances were 
as follows: 

Haeckel is a Darwinist of the extreme type. He holds 
with Darwin that man has been evolved from the ape. 
In his search for arguments to prove his thesis he has been 
for some years pursuing an idea to which he attaches much 
importance. If he could show from the actual pre-natal 
life of man that the individual man is evolved from an 
embryo which at an early stage of its growth can not be 
distinguished from the embryos of certain other animals — 
the ape, for instance — an actual case of evolution would 
be furnished having an analogy with the evolution of the 
entire human species in the lapse of ages in the past. 

The reader will have perceived that so far as the argu- 
ment could have any force at all, it would simply present 
an analogy between an actual case and a merely possible 
one. But even to effect thus much the actual fact would 
have to be produced. Haeckel was equal to the task. In 
a pamphlet published in 1907 and entitled ' ' Das Menschen- 
Problem" he exhibited some drawings of embryo men and 
apes, supposed to be taken from nature. In these repre- 



244 Haeckel 

sentations men ana apes were shown to be exactly alike; 
and doubtless Haeckel rubbed his hands with Barnum- 
like glee at the success of his little venture. This was the 
first act of the little drama; in the second came the de- 
nouement. 

In 1908, Dr. Arnold Brass, after a careful study of the 
diagrams, proved conclusively that many of them were in- 
accurate and worthless and others purposely and deliber- 
ately falsified. The scientific world was soon in a ferment 
and a war of words ensued. It was brought to a close in 
1909 by Haeckel himself in the following statement made 
in the "Miinchner Allgemeine Zeitung": 

' ' To put an end to this unsavory dispute, I begin at once 
with the contrite confession that a small number (six to 
eight per cent.) of my embryo diagrams are really forgeries 
in Dr. Brass's sense — those, namely, for which the ob' 
served material is so incomplete or insufficient as to com- 
pel us ... to fill in and reconstruct the missing links by 
hypothesis and comparative synthesis. ... I should feel 
utterly condemned and annihilated by this admission were 
it not that hundreds of the best observers and most repu- 
table biologists lie under the same charge. The great ma- 
jority of all morphological, anatomical, histological, and 
embryological diagrams . . . are not true to nature, but 
are more or less doctored, schematized, and reconstructed 

The controversy now entered a new phase. The scientific 
world had to defend itself against the sweeping charge un- 
der which Haeckel had sought shelter for his own poor 
head. Its defense was, to say the least, of a very dubious 
character. The following statement signed by forty-six 
professors representing twenty -five German and Austrian 
universities and scientific schools was published in the 
' ' Allgemeine Zeitung ' ' : 

"The undersigned professors, directors of laboratories, 
etc., herewith declare that they do not approve of the 
method of 'schematizing' which Haeckel has in some in- 
stances made use of. At the same time, in the interest of 
science and professional freedom, they condemn in the 
sharpest manner the warfare waged against Haeckel by 
Brass and the members of the Kepler Bund. They declare, 
moreover, that the evolutionistic idea can suffer no detri- 



Haeckel 245 

ment from some few inaccurately reproduced embryo-dia- 
grams. ' ' 

The evolutionistic idea suffers just as much as is in- 
volved in the loss of Haeckel's argument from analogy. 
Fraud has failed to bolster it up, and fraud was its only 
resource. Moreover, it should suffer considerable detri- 
ment from the last sentence of the document just quoted. 

The Kepler Bund, a scientific society of the highest 
standing, felt itself bound to reply. A declaration was 
issued over the names of twenty-five scientists who were 
members of the Bund and eleven who were not members. 
Nineteen learned institutions of Germany, Switzerland, 
and Austria were represented by the signatures. The 
declaration read in part as follows: 

"We are in agreement with the Kepler Bund when it 
demands that henceforth as in the past German scientific 
research shall rest on an uncompromising love of truth and 
on the strictest personal sincerity. . . . What should we 
say of a historian who should alter the letters of an in- 
scription in order to push through a preconceived personal 
opinion? Haeckel's want of conscientiousness in popular- 
izing scientific facts and philosophic speculations has been 
shown up by others besides Dr. Brass. We refer particu- 
larly to Wilhelm His, who in 1875 exposed the arbitrary 
manner in which Haeckel modified his scientific data. To 
declare as unimportant such arbitrary mutilations of the 
diagrams of others workers as Haeckel has been convicted 
of, by Rutimeyer, His, and Brass, manifests a laxity of 
opinion to which we can not assent." 

Haeckel is thus "discredited by the signed verdict of 
eighty-two of the foremost German authorities," though 
to forty-six of them it was evidently a sore task. 

And this is the man whose miserable travesty of science 
has been sapping the foundations of men's faith! And 
what a revelation does not the whole transaction make of 
what is going on in scientific circles in Germany, a country 
to which, for the rest, the world is so deeply indebted for 
its scientific knowledge. 

We may note, by the way, that Haeckel began his scien- 
tific frauds much earlier than the year 1907. In 1868, 
wishing to illustrate the identity in appearance of man, 
the dog, and the ape in their embryonic condition, he made 



246 Bell 

three copies of one and the same drawing and labeled them 
respectively man^ dog, ape! 

Haeekel has noticed, and no doubt with keen regret, 
which he manages however to fob off with a smile, the 
large exodus from the ranks of the ultra-evolntionists oc- 
curring in the past few decades ; but what will our readers 
think of a man who attributes the change of opinion that 
has taken place in the case of so many eminent scientists 
to the influence of age and increasing mental decrepitude 
(the diagnosis rebounds upon himself), and who fancies 
that the young and enthusiastic are more likely to lay hold 
of the truth than those who bring to their studies the 
ripe fruit of experience ? 

Our readers can judge for themselves with what degree 
of success Haeekel has wielded the terrible piece of ord- 
nance which is destined to make the Roman hierarchy 
tumble down like a house of cards. 



HELL 

Objection. — God is good and merciful; but a 
good and merciful God would not condemn a 
soul to eternal torments; therefore the eternity 
of hell is a contradiction of our belief in His 
goodness and mercy. 

The Answer. — God is good and merciful ; but He is also 
just, and punishes sinners as they deserve to be punished ; 
and a grievous offense against God deserves eternal pun- 
ishment. God's loving-kindness, on the other hand, is 
shown by the fact that He supplies, even superabundantly, 
the means of salvation, and by the fact that He bestows 
upon those who make a good use of those means a reward 
immeasurably greater than the absolute merit of those 
who receive it. 

Those who argue against eternal punishment or against 
God 's mercy in connection with the eternity of punishment 
have the habit of -fixing their gaze on one side of the picture 
and forgetting the other. The idea of eternal punishment 
so preoccupies their minds that they are well-nigh inca- 
pable of thinking of the causes and circumstances of the 
punishment; and yet of all subjects the punishment of 



Hell 247 

the damned is the one that most requires to be considered 
in all its aspects ; and that for the following reasons : 

1. It is a matter concerning the supreme Lord of heaven 
and earth, the infinite, eternal, and all-wise God. Of that 
Supreme Being we know, after all, so little that we should 
not turn the little knowledge we have of Him into a weapon 
of offense against any of His attributes. 

2. Of all the aspects of God's being known to man that 
of His loving-kindness and mercy is the one that is the 
most conspicuous in His dealings with mankind, and it is 
one that fills the human mind with inexpressible admira- 
tion. The abyss of His goodness and mercy is much more 
unfathomable than His motives for inflicting punishment. 
There is, it is true, a rigorous side to God's dealings with 
men, even during their mortal lives, that fills us with ter- 
ror ; but of that rigor we can, in some measure, divine the 
reasons. The pains and inflictions meted out both to indi- 
vidual men and to nations have often been the temporal 
punishment of crimes that have made the earth groan with 
the weight of the iniquities that have oppressed it ; and the 
temporal punishment, in many cases, may have brought 
men to their senses and saved them from eternal punish- 
ment. 

Then, too, many of the temporal afflictions which men 
are all too prone to attribute to God as their source are 
not really attributable to Him except in the sense that He 
has permitted them — that is to say, has not prevented them 
— but always for man's ultimate good. In cases in which 
a severe temporal punishment — only temporal, and not 
eternal, so far as we have any means of knowing — ^has been 
given for what seemed a comparative trifle, as when Oza 
was rash enough to lay his hand upon the Ark of the Cove- 
nant, the punishment was intended to inspire the people 
with a sense of awe in dealing with sacred things. In the 
case of the chosen people there was often need of a signal 
example of the divine displeasure following an act of ir- 
reverence — and the example often proved salutary for 
many a generation. 

Thus we can always find a reason for the severities of 
God's temporal rule — a reason that squares with our 
human sense of justice. But who will ever sound the 
depths of His loving-kindness and mercy? Taking the di- 
vine bounties either singly or in their entire range, from 



248 Hell 

creation to the beatific vision, who can ever say why or 
wherefore God should have conferred them at all? Why 
should He have created us when He had no need of us? 
for He was infinitely perfect, infinitely happy. Who will 
ever discover a reason except in His ineffably mysterious 
goodness ? 

And creation is but the beginning of an endless train of 
blessings, temporal and eternal. His creating us to His 
image, and thereby endowing us with intelligence and free 
will ; the natural and supernatural gifts lavished upon the 
first two of our race; the rich rewards of virtue He be- 
stowed upon the patriarchs — upon Noe, Abraham, Isaac, 
Jacob, and Joseph; the care He bestowed upon the chosen 
people, in Egypt, in the desert, in the promised land; the 
abundant temporal rewards conferred upon the virtuous 
observers of the Law — these are the unmerited and spon- 
taneous outpourings of goodness which mark only one-half 
of God's dealings with men. 

The other half must be sought in that new dispensation 
which is the fulfilment of the types of the old. The prophe- 
cies had teemed with descriptions of a new era in which 
the favors of the Almighty would be showered down in 
untold abundance as the dowry which the Eternal Father 
was to send into the world with His Divine Son. "God 
so loved the world as to give His Only-Begotten Son." 
Here we have a new abyss of mercy which is more unfath- 
omable than the first. The very life of the Saviour, apart 
from the innumerable blessings that came with Him, would 
be sufficient of itself to prove that His merices are the 
least comprehensible of all the things we know about God. 

But if we add to His life its superabundant merits, 
which when turned into graces form the inexhaustible 
treasury of God's Church; if we add the graces and con- 
solations and the foretaste of heaven which is received with 
the sacraments which our divine Lord instituted — we shall 
obtain even then but a faint conception of the love of the 
Creator for the work of His hands. The climax is reached 
when the joys of heaven are added; joys springing from 
the possession of the infinite God Himself, and for eternity. 
Is it not true, then, that the abyss of His mercies is more 
unfathomable than His motives for inflicting pain? 

//, therefore, a God whose mercies are unspeakably great 
visits some of His rational creatures with eternal punish- 



Human Race, The 249 

ment, there must he motives for punishing which are 
worthy of His infinite attributes. The thought of hell 
necessarily awakens deep reflection : let not such reflection 
issue in an impeachment of the divine mercy. Let it rather 
issue in a deeper sense of the enormity of sin, of the in- 
gratitude of the sinner and of the perversity of one who 
not only adds sin upon sin but sets at nought the divine 
warnings heard in the depths of his soul. Let it also open 
to view that unseen world of grace in which God fairly 
besieges the soul with His merciful inspirations. We know 
not the number of the reprobate, nor can we presume to 
pass judgment on any sinner who has left this world, no 
matter how great his sin; but one thing we know, that no 
one was ever lost who was not lost in spite of God's merci- 
ful designs in his behalf. 

HUMAN RACE, THE 

HOW OLD IS IT? 

A Modem Objection. — In the mud of the Mis- 
sissippi skeletons have been found that must 
have been there at least 60,000 years. Hence the 
Bible's reckoning of four thousand years from 
Adam to Christ is discredited by physical 
science. 

The Answer. — It is anything but certain that the Bible 
reckons four thousand years between Adam and Christ. 
There are varying texts and different versions of the sacred 
writings. If the genealogies given in the Latin Vulgate 
are to be regarded as determining the age of the human 
race, the successive generations of men do indeed make up 
a total of some four thousand years ; but according to the 
Greek Septuagint more than a thousand more must be 
reckoned. And yet both versions are in use in the Church. 
Ecclesiastical authority leaves it undecided which of the 
two accounts is the correct one, or whether both are not 
wrong and a third, that of the original text, right. 

But a more important point still to be noted by students 
and readers of the sacred books is that even if the Vulgate 
(or the Septuagint, as the case might be) should be proved 
to be in all respects authentic and substantially trust- 
worthy, the Bible need not necessarily be regarded as de- 



250 Human Race, The 

termining the age of the human race. Catholic biblical 
scholars whose orthodoxy can not be questioned admit this 
view and support it with solid arguments. True, the names 
and ages of successive patriarchs are given in the Bible, 
and a plain reader of the text might consider it a simple 
problem in arithmetic to figure out the total age of the 
human race from Adam to Christ. But as scholars view 
it the problem may be a more intricate one — not only be- 
cause we have no certainty of the number of years in the 
original text of pre-Mosaic genealogies, but also because 
there are grave reasons for thinking that there may be gaps 
in the genealogies of the Bible — ^not, however, of a kind to 
detract from the Bible's inerrancy. 

The reasons in detail the reader will find in the articles 
in the ''Catholic Encyclopedia" entitled "Chronology 
(Biblical)" and ''Genealogy (in the Bible)." Our only 
concern here is to state that there is nothing either in Cath- 
olic scholarship or in the pronouncements of Church au- 
thority obliging us to hold that the Bible fixes the age of 
the human race as four or five thousand, or, indeed, any 
definite number of years. If neither scholarship nor au- 
thority can read an exact and complete chronology into the 
Bible, much less can the average skeptic who lightly, and 
for the most part ignorantly, appeals to the results of 
scientific research. 

Apart from what we know from the Bible, the insignifi- 
cance of our knowledge of primitive man is indicated by 
the meager collection of prehistoric human remains pre- 
served in our great museums. There is indeed an immense 
collection of implements, such as tools and weapons of 
flint, and a certain number of carvings and drawings, all 
of which give evidence of the manual skill and the mental 
capacity of the men belonging to the Stone Age — a period 
deriving its name from the use of stone implements before 
the use of metals was known; but the search for human 
remains, such as skulls, jawbones, or thighbones, and espe- 
cially for whole skeletons, has been much less fruitful. 

The following is almost a complete list of really impor- 
tant finds of prehistoric human relics: 

A human skull found in the Neanderthal Valley, near 
Diisseldorf , and a few others of the same peculiar type ; an 
under jaw found at Naulette, in Belgium; a skeleton dis- 
covered at Kanstatt, Germany; a jaw-bone found in the 



How Old Is It? 251 

Schipka Cave in Moravia; the complete skeletons of a 
man and a woman found at Spy, in Belgium; a skeleton 
found at Olmo, in Tuscany ; a skull discovered at Egisheim, 
in Alsace; a skeleton found at Galley Hill, in Kent; a jaw- 
bone found in a sand-pit at Mauer, near Heidelberg ; a jaw- 
bone and fragments of a cranium discovered at Piltdown, 
in Sussex. 

These remains are in some cases the merest fragments 
of human skeletons, and much difficulty has been experi- 
enced in the task of reconstruction, that is to say, in the 
attempt to present an idea of the whole from indications 
supplied by the parts. In the case of the Piltdown remains 
it is doubtful whether the jaw-bone and the imperfect cra- 
nium belonged to the same individual and whether they 
are both human. 

What is the value of these human remains ? They would 
possess a considerable value to the student of prehistoric 
man if they bore any indication of their age; but their 
age is a matter of conjecture. Supposing they belong to 
the Stone Age, do they belong to the earlier periods of that 
epoch or to the later? As regards the Neanderthal skull, 
Professor Virchow, whose authority will not be questioned, 
assures us that there is no proof that it dates from the 
Early Stone Age, but admits that it may possibly belong 
to the Later Stone Age. *'Its age is undetermined,'' he 
says, *'and it may be of a much later date." (Quoted by 
Ranke, *'Der Mensch," II, p. 484.) So speak the really 
great men of science about the significance of these re- 
mains, generally, as bearing on the age of the human race. 
They simply do not know at what interval the present gen- 
eration stands from the time when those human relics were 
deposited in the places where they were found. They can 
guess, they can hazard calculations in which a number of 
if's must be understood ; but this is not exact science, and 
it should never be quoted as such against the Bible. The 
reader can form an idea of the present state of science in 
this connection when he is told that estimates of the age 
of the race vary from 10,000 years (perhaps much too low 
a figure) to 10,000,000! The estimates that mount highest 
are generally those of evolutionists who assume without a 
particle of proof that man was gradually evolved from 
the ape and that the evolution required an enormous lapse 



252 Indifferentism 

of time. But evolutionary theory is one thing, well- 
authenticated fact quite another. 

But our opponents have another stone in their wallet. 
They appeal to the astronomical tables of the East In- 
dians; but, happily, modern astronomy enables us to lay 
the objection to rest. The eminent astronomer Littrow 
is surely entitled to be heard on the subject. He says: 
''The astronomical tables of the Indians, to which they 
themselves attribute so high an antiquity, show clearly 
that they were drawn up at a time when the motion of 
Saturn was slowest and that of Jupiter fastest; and this 
circumstance enables us to determine with some certainty 
the time at which these tables were composed. If the ec- 
centricities which they assign to several of the planetary 
orbits be combined, it becomes very probable, as Laplace 
has shown, that the tables, so far from having been com- 
posed four thousand years before the beginning of our 
reckoning, really date from a period as late as the begin- 
ning of the sixteenth century after Christ, and were made 
after the model of European tables." — Wunder des Him- 
mels, p. 831. 

Science has really nothing to say against the compara- 
tively recent origin of man, and the Bible is in possession 
of the field. 

(See ''Apes and Men" and "Evolution.") 



INDIFFERENTISM 

The Plea of the Indiiferentist. — Religious 
creeds are a matter of personal preference, and 
a search for the right creed, if there is any such 
thing, can not be expected of the average man. 
On the other hsmd we cdl have a grasp of certain 
principles of morality which are the mainstay 
of society. With these society may well rest 
contented. 

Our Answer. — We have dealt in another article with 
the watchword of the indifferentist, "Deeds, not creeds," 
and have endeavored to show its absurdity. In the present 
article we aim at being more helpful to th-e indifferentist 
by enabling him, if possible, to realize the gravity of the 



Indifferentism 253 

situation in which he finds himself, and by furnishing him 
with a positive clue to the discovery of the truth. 

The indifferentist believes, or tries to make himself be- 
lieve, that the motto ''Deeds, not creeds" is the embodi- 
ment of common sense. Let us sift it a little. Ask a man 
of this way of thinking what deeds he means. Ask him to 
draw up a list of those deeds which he thus sets over against 
the creeds, that is to say, of the acts and habits which he 
deems morally right. Ask a second and a third, and so 
on indefinitely, to do the same. You will find that no two 
such lists will in all points tally, and some will be much 
longer than others. One man's list of honest deeds will in- 
clude no more than honesty, sobriety, obedience to the laws 
(when they can not be evaded), and a care of one's family, 
with perhaps a bit of philanthropy and public spirit thrown 
in by way of giving a sort of halo to the rest. These are 
only the deeds and duties without which even pagan so- 
*ciety could not get on at all, and without which the indi- 
vidual would come to grief. 

Another vaunter of deeds as against creeds would add a 
few more virtues to his list. His moral sense is of a finer 
sort, and hence he adds to the catalogue meekness emd pa- 
tience, charity in words (mere thoughts would be under no 
moral restraint), and chastity, as a matter of outward be- 
havior. Another would add sincerity (an approach to hu- 
mility) and a restraint upon thoughts and desires. 

One would like to know, in dealing with such persons, 
where the line is to be drawn between good and bad deeds. 
Why should one man's list of virtues be longer than an- 
other's? Have they any criterion by which to discover 
whether any one of them is complete and exhaustive ? And 
then, what is their criterion for deciding whether any deed 
deserves to be called virtuous? Most men who are indif- 
ferent to positive creeds are quite at sea on these points. 
As to prayer and worship, well — they may have some vague 
notion of the fitness and reasonableness of the thing, but 
they would seldom think of entering it on a list of moral 
duties. 

And then the very notion of duty and obligation which 
underlies all their ideas about virtue and vice — upon what 
is it based ? The basis is either a rational or an irrational 
one. If it is a rational one it will resolve itself into a judg- 
ment that certain things are right and ought to be done, 



254 Indifferentism 

whilst other things are wrong and ought to be avoided; 
in other words, into a dictate of conscience. But con- 
science must be based upon a belief (implied at least) that 
there is some higher power than our own wills, one to which 
our wills are subject; for there can be no duty or obliga- 
tion unless it be imposed by a will which has a sovereign 
right over ours — the will of a personal Deity. Any other 
basis for the notion of duty is irrational. You may see the 
expediency or the utility of doing certain things which 
you consider right, but that it is a duty for you to do them 
— that you must do them — ^you would regard as absurd un- 
less you admitted a higher will to which yours was subject. 

The existence of this sovereign power is frequently a 
matter of doubt, or even of denial, to the one who is a 
vaunter of deeds and a contemner of creeds. Formally or 
virtually he is an atheist or an agnostic. What, or how 
much, do you believe, we would ask the indifferentist, con- 
cerning the existence of a God who has brought you into 
being and has a claim on your obedience ? And what bear- 
ing do you suppose obedience to God has upon one 's eternal 
destiny? You have drawn up a brief list of essential du- 
ties: what if obedience to God requires you to extend the 
list? 

Whatever be the present state of your mind regarding 
that subject, the question is one of tremendous importance 
to you, personally. Your eternal destiny must far out- 
weigh any possible amount of difficulty involved in a search 
for light on the subject. If the duty of knowing and serv- 
ing God were but a fancy engendered in weak and igno- 
rant minds it might be set aside as undeserving of atten- 
tion. But if the brightest and noblest minds in history 
have accepted it and acted upon it, it surely possesses a 
special claim to your attention. Even though it had no 
such high recommendation, the fact that eternity is at stake 
should be enough to induce you to make an honest inquiry 
after the truth. 

Such an inquiry need not be a hopeless one. It is not a 
matter of traveling into some unknown region of specula- 
tion in which there are no landmarks for the guidance of 
the traveler. These nineteen hundred years a power has 
been at work in this world which has wrought for the 
ennobling, elevating, and purifying of the human soul, and 
which bears upon it the seal of its divine origin. Impeded 



Indifferentism 255 

in its action, at times, by the human instruments which it 
must employ, nevertheless, by reason of the divine element 
in it, it has won its way to human hearts and has gradually 
embraced the greater part of the world within the sphere 
of its influence. Christianity is the first subject to be 
studied by any one who is setting about a search for the 
truth — the more so as Christianity has sprung from and is 
the perfecting of the oldest, the most consistent, and the 
noblest tradition of religious teaching in the history of the 
world — that of the chosen people of God. Tolle et lege — 
take up the book of the Gospels — as the angel said to St. 
Augustine, whose giant intellect was for a time held cap- 
tive by one of the false philosophies of his day, read with 
the unbiased mind of an Augustine, and pray with but one- 
tenth of his fervor, and sooner or later light will succeed 
darkness. 

We have been thinking in the above passage of the type 
of indifferentist who makes light of all religious knowl- 
edge, who knows nothing and cares to know nothing about 
God, revelation, or immortality. But there is one of an- 
other type who is something of a Christian and who re- 
spects the authority of Christ and the Bible. Bred in 
childhood to the teaching of one or other of the Christian 
sects, he has allowed the cares or the pleasures of the 
world to draw him away from religious worship — or, it 
may be, he attends religious services intermittently, 
though he brings to them a set of Christian or half- 
Christian beliefs of his own making. In either case, when 
the claims of the one true religion are urged, he takes 
refuge behind a sort of half-conviction that, after all, it 
matters little which of the creeds he adopts provided his 
deeds are in harmony with the Christian code — whatever 
that may mean to him. 

An indifferentist of this class should be reminded that 
the first and foremost of those good deeds of which he 
makes so much account is to believe — and believe in its 
totality — what Christ has revealed, and what He has en- 
joined upon all to believe. That revelation is one and un- 
changeable, and constitutes a definite body of teachings, 
placed in the keeping of a Church — one only Church — 
which is "the pillar and ground of truth" (1 Tim. iii. 15) 
— against which "the gates of hell shall not prevail" 
(Matt. xvi. 18) — to whose teachers the promise was given; 



256 Indifferentism 

''Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consumma- 
tion of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 20). 

That this definite teaching of a visible Church must be 
accepted by all is plain from the words of Christ: "Go 
ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every 
creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, 
but he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi. 
15, 16), or, as the Protestant Authorized Version has it, 
** shall be damned." 

If a rejection of Christ's teaching deserves eternal dam- 
nation, an indifference to all creeds must deserve the same 
penalty. Therefore an effort to find the one true creed 
is an imperative duty. 

But, replies the indifferentist, as things are to-day how 
is it possible to discover the true faith of Christ? Must 
I examine the claims of seven hundred sects, each assert- 
ing its own exclusive possession of the truth? 

The difficulty you fear is, in the first place, exaggerated. 
Yet, even if it were much greater than it is, the impor- 
tance of the object of your quest would far outweigh the 
difficulty involved in searching for it. It is a matter of 
obtaining the "pearl of great price" and of providing for 
eternity. If you were given seven hundred keys of all 
shapes, and were told that one of them, by a certain num- 
ber of turns to right and left, would unlock the door of 
an apartment containing untold treasures, all of which 
would be yours if you lighted on the right key and dis- 
covered how to use it, would you not spend whole days — 
nay, even months and years — searching for the key and 
applying it to the lock? Most men would; and not un- 
reasonably, for the treasure would be worth the trouble. 
But the search for the truth is not of so intricate a nature. 
It is true that but one of the seven hundred keys is the 
right one, but there are ways of simplifying the search. 
There are tests that may be applied, by means of which 
you may in a short time eliminate all but the right key. 
By the use of these tests countless inquirers have, as a 
matter of fact, been led to the truth. 

Some have applied to the various Christian sects the 
historical test, or that of origin: the Church that could 
trace its history back to the apostles must have superior 
claims to those churches that have existed only a few 
centuries, and which were repudiated and cut off from 



Indifferentism 257 

communion by the Church which has undoubtedly existed 
since the time of the apostles. 

Others have applied the test of universality : the Church 
of Christ must be a world-Church — it must be confined to 
no single country or race, and above all must not derive 
all its authority from the secular government of any par- 
ticular country. 

But there is one test which is perhaps the most obvious 
and the most easily applied — the test of unity — and to 
this we would ask the special attention of the indifferentist. 

It needs but little reflection to see that unity should be 
one of the chief attributes of the Church to which Christ 
committed the preaching of the word. In the first place, 
the doctrine He commanded it to preach was to be one 
and unchanged forever. This, from the nature of the case, 
should be obvious. No one, not even an angel from heaven, 
St. Paul admonishes us, was authorized to change it. It 
is no less clear that perfect agreement should subsist among 
those who accepted the teaching of the apostles ; otherwise 
it would have been useless for one only doctrine to have 
been preached to all. 

Moreover, oneness of doctrine was to be rooted in one- 
ness of authority — the divinely constituted teaching au- 
thority of the Church. Our Lord did not simply exhort 
His followers to unity of doctrine, but gave them a body 
of accredited teachers, who were to go forth "teaching 
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded 
you^' (Matt, xxviii. 20). ''He that believeth [your teach- 
ing] and is baptized, shall be saved; he that believeth not, 
shall be condemned" (Mark xvi. 16). "He that heareth 
you, heareth Me; he that despiseth you, despiseth Me" 
(Luke X. 16). "If he will not hear the Church let him 
be to thee as the heathen and the publican" (Matt, xviii. 
17). Such is the visible teaching authority established by 
Christ. This, and no other, can be the source of all right 
doctrine, and consequently of all unity of doctrine in the 
Church. 

In any church professing to be Christian and yet not 
teaching with authority, unity of doctrine is left to chance, 
or rather is exposed to certain disruption. The Jews said 
of Our Lord that He spoke as one having authority, and 
not as the Scribes and the Pharisees; and a consciousness 
of divine authority showed itself in every word He ut- 



258 Indiffereniism 

tered. The same note of authority rang through the dis- 
course of St. Peter on the day of Pentecost. No less au- 
thoritative were the utterances of the Apostle of the 
Gentiles. And if there is a Church to-day that perpetuates 
the mission of Christ and His apostles, its teaching must 
bear the same stamp of authority. Oneness of doctrine 
and oneness of authority are, therefore, a characteristic 
note of the true Church of Christ. 

Take unity as your criterion, we would say to the in- 
differentist, and you will find that the problem of finding 
the one Church of Christ is rendered comparatively easy. 
Your seven hundred religions will at once resolve them- 
selves into two classes: those that possess unity and those 
that do not. In the first class you will find the Catholic 
Church, and no other. (Catholic and Roman Catholic are 
the same.) The unity of the Catholic Church is so con- 
spicuous as to force itself on the notice and excite the 
jealousy of its enemies. Every single Catholic in a grand 
total of nearly three hundred million believes the same 
doctrine as every other member of the Church. 

True, in matters that have not been defined as of faith 
considerable latitude is permitted to personal opinion, and 
on these points there has been divergence of opinion ; but, 
on the other hand, there is a tribunal which is competent 
to decide, in the first place, what is of faith and what 
is not, and, in the second place, which of the parties to a 
controversy is in the right. The unity of the Church con- 
sists, then, in the universal acceptance of what is taught 
as of faith and the readiness to accept the decision of the 
Church in matters of controversy. With human minds 
constituted as they are this is the most perfect unity con- 
ceivable — and, indeed, there is no parallel to it in human 
society. 

Outside the Catholic Church we find an enormous num- 
ber of sects all bearing the name of Christian. Taken as 
a body, and to a great extent taken singly, these Christian 
sects are confessedly and notoriously disunited. Their one 
common ground is their opposition to the only Church that 
possesses unity. Even the Bible, which has always been 
their one rule of faith, has fallen from its once high place 
in their estimation and is gradually sinking to the rank of 
an ordinary history containing a large admixture of the 
mythical. All the world knows that many of the leading 



Indifferentism 259 

lights of Protestantism deal with the Bible in a purely ra- 
tionalistic spirit. But even when the Bible ruled supreme 
it was the very fountain-source of disunion, for it was 
on the alleged authority of the Bible that every new dis- 
senting sect based its separation from the older ones. 

This tendency to disunion has been the most striking 
trait of Protestantism from the beginning. Not even the 
potent influence of such characters as Luther, Calvin, and 
Zwingli could reduce their followers to unity. Seeing, how- 
ever, that their teachings must be backed by an assertion 
of authority, they ruled the conduct and consciences of 
their subjects with a rod of iri n. But private judgment 
was not to be stifled. Who is tiiis Luther? Who Calvin? 
Who Zwingli? Are we not as good interpreters of the 
Bible as they? So queried their followers; and hence the 
numerous divisions that sprang up even during the infancy 
of Protestantism. 

**It is of great importance," wrote Calvin to Melanch- 
thon, ''that the divisions that subsist among us should not 
be known to future ages; for nothing can be more ridicu- 
lous than that we, who have been compelled to make a 
separation from the whole world, should have agreed so ill 
among ourselves from the beginning of the Reformation." 
Melanchthon wrote in answer that "the Elbe, with all its 
waters, could not furnish tears enough to weep over the 
miseries of the distracted Reformation. ' ' Beza makes moan 
in a similar strain. "Our people," he says, "are carried 
away by every wind of doctrine. If you know what their 
religion is to-day, you can not tell what it may be to- 
morrow. There is not a single point which is not held by 
some of them as an article of faith and by others rejected 
as an impiety." "Each individual is a free and fully au- 
thorized judge of all those who wish to instruct him, and 
each one is taught by God alone. "^ 

The divisions of Protestantism have not been healed by 
time. It is no paradox to say that disintegration is the law 
of its being. Temporary union is the result of the accidents 
of time and place. Where every one may think as he 
pleases there may be as many religions as there are heads 
to invent them. 



^See Janssen's great work, "The History of the German People 
at the Close of the Middle Ages," vols. Ill and IV. 



260 Indulgences 

We have endeavored to furnish the indifferentist a 
clue that may lead him out of the labyrinth into which 
he has been driven by the sight of the multitudinous sects 
whose claims are so confused and so confusing. The clue 
we offer him is neither new nor untried, for it has been 
used by many in the same situation. Moreover, testimony 
of the strongest kind has been rendered in its favor by a 
class of thinkers who, though not embracing the truth them- 
selves, have lost nothing of their logical acumen. It is a 
well-known position of many unbelievers of the skeptical 
and critical schools that if Christianity were true, there 
would be no choice for them between Eoman Catholicism 
and any other form of Christianity. Unity and consistency 
are naturally looked for by logical minds in the teaching 
of a God-Man and His true representatives. The strength 
of this testimony lies in the fact of its coming from so 
independent a source. 

For any one who is convinced by the above reasoning 
there is but one practical course open: he should seek in- 
struction in Catholic doctrine. 

INDULGENCES 

Erroneous Views. — i. Indulgences are an easy 
means of obtaining pardon for sin — even future 
sin — without repentance. They have been ap- 
plied to the releasing of souls from purgatory, 
and for that purpose they might be bought for 
money. — 2. "In theory [indulgences] always 
presupposed repentance ; but as the business was 
managed in Germany [before the Reformation] 
it amounted in the popular apprehension to a 
sale of absolution from guilt, or to the ransom of 
deceased friends from purgatory for money." — 
Fisher, "Outlines of Universal History," p. 397. 

The Truth. — An indulgence is neither a pardon for sin 
nor a license to commit sin. It supposes repentance for 
sin. In this matter the practical belief of Catholics has 
never been at variance with the theory as set forth by 
Catholic theologians. 

Old prejudices die hard, especially in matters religious; 
but the collapse of the old prejudice against indulgences 



Indulgences 261 

has already begun. The two sets of objections placed at the 
head of this article, which are not in entire agreement, are 
intended to exhibit the turn of the tide of popular opinion 
regarding indulgences. Our opponents are gradually get- 
ting nearer the truth. The author of a popular text-book 
informs us that indulgences are not, in theory, a pardon 
for sin, but that the people of Germany once thought they 
were, and bought them as such. Let us hope that the edi- 
tor of some future edition of the book will advance a step 
further and tell his readers that indulgences neither are nor 
have been thought to be anything but a remission of tem- 
poral punishment, after repentance. 

What is meant by an indulgence ? An indulgence is the 
remission or canceling of the temporal punishment due to 
sin after the sin itself has been forgiven. The punishment 
is to be suffered either in this life or in the next. In this 
life it may take the form either of voluntary penance or of 
penance enjoined by the Church. It supposes sincere re- 
pentance for sin, and in many cases is given only on con- 
dition of contrite confession. 

Such is the technical and ecclesiastical meaning of the 
word ' ' indulgence. ' * It differs somewhat from its ordinary 
meaning. In common parlance it means an easy, yielding, 
and forbearing disposition toward those who are subject to 
us, and does not necessarily imply repentance or atonement 
for offenses committed. In ecclesiastical usage it signifies 
a favor granted to those who are already friends of God 
by the possession of sanctifying grace. A soul stained by 
grievous sin must first be reconciled with God before re- 
ceiving any such favors at the hands of the Church. 

The definition we have given implies that even when 
God forgives sin there may still be some atonement to be 
made for it. The idea is not a familiar one to persons out- 
side the Catholic Church, but it is none the less scriptural. 
Moses, though a friend of God and forgiven his transgres- 
sion, was nevertheless punished by not being permitted to 
enter the promised land. David was pardoned by the Lord 
for his double crime of adultery and murder: *'The Lord 
also hath taken away thy sin," the prophet Nathan told 
him; "nevertheless," he added, ''because thou hast given 
occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this 
thing the child that is born to thee shall surely die" — a 
plain case of punishment inflicted after the forgiveness of 



262 Indulgences 

the sin. Now it is precisely the canceling of such punish- 
ment that is meant by an indulgence. 

But is it possible that the Church has it in her power 
to release the sinner from such atonement for his sin ? Such 
power has undoubtedly been conferred upon the Church. 
The idea of a Church that wields the power of the keys has 
unfortunately faded away from the minds of our separated 
brethren, and yet it stands out in strong relief upon the 
pages of Scripture. *' Whatsoever thou shalt loose upon 
earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matt. xvi. 19). 
These words were addressed to Peter, but the same powers 
were afterward conferred upon all the apostles (Matt, 
xviii. 18). *'By reason of their generality we must under- 
stand these words to refer to every bond or obstacle which 
bars heaven against the faithful, consequently to the out- 
standing temporal punishment of sin."^ Even greater 
power than this was given the apostles. "Whose sins you 
shall forgive, they are forgiven them" (John xx. 23). 
What wonder, then, if, possessing a power that can open or 
close the gates of heaven to sinners for all eternity, they 
should possess the lesser power of retaining or remitting 
the mere temporal punishment due to sin? 

Objection. — The remission of such temporal punishment 
by indulgences should be a comparatively rare occurrence 
and should not be granted on such easy terms as they are 
in the Church of Rome. Punishment becomes a byword 
when it is frequently canceled on merciful considerations. 

Answer. — Indulgences are frequently given, it is true, 
but not on such easy terms as fancied. Some of the smaller 
indulgences are granted for the recitation of short prayers, 
but the greater the indulgence the greater the exaction. 
In all cases good works of one kind or another are en- 
joined; such as fasting, almsgiving, confession and com- 
munion, visits to churches, pilgrimages, and the like. 

But even supposing that all indulgences were granted on 
the easiest possible conditions, it must be remembered that, 
though punishment is demanded by justice and may be 
salutary to the penitent, nevertheless there may be some- 
thing better than punishment. A prudent parent will 
easily cancel a child's punishment when such indulgence 
will lead to the child's improvement. Now there is one 
thing the Church never loses sight of in granting indul- 

^Wilmer's "Handbook of the Christian Religion," p. 361. 



Indulgences 263 

gences — ^the spiritual good of those who receive them. As 
a matter of fact, the discipline of indulgences produces a 
great increase of piety among the faithful. The good works 
required bring the sinner nearer to God. Prayer, confes- 
sion of sins, the receiving of the Bread of Life, anticipate 
the salutary effects of punishment and render the soul more 
pleasing to God. 

The power conferred on the apostles, and consequently 
on their successors, was exercised by them from the begin- 
ning of the history of the Church. Witness St. Paul's 
treatment of the incestuous Corinthian (1 Cor. v. 3-5 and 
2 Cor. ii. 6, 7). In the name and by the power of Jesus 
Christ he punishes the sinner, but afterward, as represent- 
ing the person of Christ, he remits the punishment. The 
binding and the loosing were evidently regarded by St. 
Paul as ratified in heaven. 

In the early days of the Church it was customary to 
impose severe public penances for the more grievous of- 
fenses. These canonical penances might last for years. 
They were intended partly as an expiation for sins com- 
mitted ; and on account of their being imposed by the bind- 
ing powers of the Church they were regarded as though 
imposed by God Himself; and when the Church exercised 
her power of loosing by remitting a portion of the punish- 
ment, or, in other words, granted an indulgence, the pun- 
ishment was believed to be canceled by God Himself. The 
power of binding and loosing given by God would be recog- 
nized by Him in its actual exercise. 

In times of persecution those who were imprisoned for 
the Faith, especially those who were about to suffer martyr- 
dom, could obtain for well-disposed penitents a shortening 
of their terms of canonical penance. St. Cyprian bears 
express testimony to the belief that such favors bestowed 
by the Church were ratified by God. In one of his epistles 
he expresses confidence in the belief that sinners who are 
on their deathbeds and have not had time to complete their 
canonical penances are ''helped before God" and "will 
come to Him in peace" in consequence of the indulgences 
of the Church granted at the solicitation of the martyrs. 
The writings, generally, of St. Cyprian, Tertullian, and 
many other authorities of the first five centuries throw a 
clear light upon the belief and practice of the early 



264 Indulgences 

Church in the matter of indulgences. Both the belief and 
the practice were the same then as they are to-day. 

As to the application of indulgences to the souls in purga- 
tory, it must be noted that the Church lays no claim to 
jurisdiction over souls in the other life. Hence if indul- 
gences are applied to the souls of the dead, it is only per 
modum suffragii, i.e., by way of petition. The Church pre- 
sents her offering or ransom to the Almighty, and it is 
doubtless accepted, though we can not know with certainty 
how much any particular soul is benefited hy it. 

And now a word or two about the abuses, real and imagi- 
nary, in the actual administration of indulgences, out of 
which the adversaries of the Catholic Faith have made so 
much capital — especially the alleged traffic in indulgences 
which roused Luther's ire and was the immediate occasion 
of his onslaught upon the Church. In the first place, there 
is nothing too sacred to be free from abuse ; but the abuse 
of a good thing furnishes no argument against its proper 
use. Just before Luther's revolt there were undoubtedly 
some abuses connected with the preaching of a notable in- 
dulgence published by Pope Leo X, but they were com- 
mitted contrary to the explicit instructions of ecclesiastical 
superiors; and they were condemned in that day, as they 
are condemned to-day, by all right-minded Catholics. But, 
granting that there were certain extravagances attending 
the preaching of this indulgence, we must deny that they 
were such as to justify the sweeping assertions placed at 
the head of this article. And yet these are typical of the 
attacks made upon the Catholic doctrine and practice. 

Recent historians^ have thrown some light upon the facts 
of the case. In the year 1514 Pope Leo X published an 
indulgence to aid in the completing of St. Peter's Church 
in Rome. It was to be gained, partly, by the performance 
of some of the usual good works — confession, communion, 
and a fast. But the well-to-do were to add an alms for 
the completion of the church, whilst the poor, instead of 
giving an alms, were to say extra prayers. The indulgence 
obtained under the grant might be applied, or transferred, 
to the souls in purgatory. There is nothing absurd or un- 
christian in supposing that God deigns to have regard to 
good works, including almsgiving, performed for the bene- 

^We refer the reader particularly to Janssen's "History of the 
German People at the Close of the Middle Ages," vol. Ill, pp. 89-95. 



Indulgences 265 

fit of souls in the other life — only we can not know, as we 
have said, whether or how much any particular soul is 
benefited by such acts. 

Nevertheless, there was at that time an opinion held by 
some theologians that a plenary indulgence applied to a 
particular soul was certain to release it from the fires of 
purgatory. It is easy to imagine how a doctrine like this 
might be exploited by a zealous preacher whose heart was 
set upon large money returns. That it was so exploited, 
at least by some and to a certain extent, we must frankly 
admit as an historical fact, though we are not bound to 
accept the traditional Protestant account of the matter, 
which is inspired by prejudice against the Church. For 
well-nigh four centuries Protestants have made merry over 
real or imaginary extravagances in the preaching of indul- 
gences in the sixteenth century. Why, in the name of jus- 
tice, why this constant taunting of us Catholics for such 
religious abuses of the Middle Ages? Why the constant 
endeavor to shame us in our Catholic ancestors? Were they 
not equally the ancestors of our Protestant antagonists? 
And do not we as well as our separated brethren condemn 
these abuses? The real difference between our Protestant 
friends and ourselves is that we have discarded the abuses 
but clung to the old Faith, whilst they have rejected all in 
the lump. 

The fact of primary importance is that no abuse con- 
nected with indulgences in the sixteenth century — or in- 
deed in any century — ever met with the approval of the 
Church, and that every such abuse was visited with express 
condemnation. The utterances of Cardinal Cajetan, says 
Janssen, prove that the sentiments of the preachers in ques- 
tion were not those of Rome. ''The preachers," says Ca- 
jetan, "come forward in the name of the Church in so far 
as they proclaim the teaching of Christ and the Church; 
but if they teach out of their own heads, and for their own 
profit, things about which they have no knowledge, they 
can not pass as representatives of the Church, and one can 
not wonder that in such cases they fall into error. ' ' 

And yet it was such accidental abuses, which never had 
the Church's approval, that furnished a pretext for the 
unspeakable scandal of a revolt against the Church itself 
by the founder of Protestantism. Efforts to correct the 
aWses in question had been made before Luther's time. 



266 Jesus of Nazareth 

The Church ultimately succeeded, as only the true Church 
can succeed, in ridding itself of any such ugly excrescence. 
The Catholic Church is indeed the only religious body pos- 
sessing the power of correcting abuses within its pale with- 
out disrupting itself. 

It is not true, then, that indulgences are an easy means 
of obtaining pardon for sin. They have nothing to do with 
the guilt of sin, and the remission of temporal punishment 
due to sin can not be obtained except by the contrite of 
heart. As to the statement that at least in the popular 
estimation indulgences were a sale of absolution from guilt, 
such assertions are easily made, but where is the proof? 
When was there a time in the history of the Church when 
the essential conditions for obtaining specific indulgences 
were not clearly set forth in official documents addressed 
to the multitude? These conditions always included in- 
terior dispositions, especially sorrow for sin. As to the al- 
leged popular persuasion that particular souls in purgatory 
could be ransomed by money, is the possible effect upon the 
ignorant of indiscreet preaching by a certain class of 
preachers on a certain occasion to be erected into evidence 
of a general popular perversion of belief? 

INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, THE 

See 'Tope, The.— His Prerogative of Infallibility." 
JESUS OF NAZARETH 

HIS EXISTENCE 

A Bold Assertion. — It is not historically cer- 
tain that Christ ever existed ; and yet the whole 
of Christianity is based on the life of Christ. 

The Answer. — Is there another personage in history 
whose existence is so well vouched for as that of Christ? 
As well might Caesar, or Cicero, or even Frederick the 
Great, or Napoleon, be regarded as mythical, for the exis- 
tence of these historical characters is not more authentically- 
established than that of Christ. Clear and positive testi- 
mony of the life and work of Christ is found in the writings 
of those who were almost His contemporaries, such as Sue- 



His Existence 267 

tonius, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger. It is found even 
in the writings of the eminent Jewish historian, Flavins 
Josephus. 

But there is not the smallest need of going beyond the 
four Gospels for a complete authentication of the life of 
Jesus of Nazareth. If the four Gospels are pure fiction, 
the production of such a piece of fiction was a miracle of 
the first order. There is nothing in the creative genius of 
man that could ever have reached such an altitude of con- 
ception or of execution. And yet in the Gospels we have 
four distinct portraits of a man of transcendent greatness, 
differing in detail, yet each bearing unmistakable signs of 
being true to the life. And then what strong sidelights 
are thrown upon the Gospels by the other books of the New 
Testament. To think that this whole mass of writings, al- 
most contemporaneous with the life of Him who is their 
one great subject, should be occupied with a purely imagi- 
nary character is to be capable of harboring in one's mind 
the veriest of chimeras. 

Read the New Testament, we would say to any one who 
is disposed to regard the history of Christ as a myth, read 
the New Testament, or at least the four Gospels, from be- 
ginning to end, and then ask yourself honestly whether 
you can reasonably doubt of the existence of Jesus of 
Nazareth, the Founder of the Christian religion. 

It is perfectly true that the whole of Christianity is based 
on the life of Christ. It is not less the truth that Chris- 
tianity has been an undoubted factor, and one of stupen- 
dous importance, in the making of the world 's history these 
nineteen hundred years. Now to attempt to explain the 
existence of Christianity without the existence of Christ 
would be folly no less pronounced than to attempt to build 
a house by beginning at the roof. Christianity did not 
simply drop from the clouds. It owes its origin to a per- 
sonage who trod the earth and moved among men. No mere 
product of human fancy could impress his own image on 
the work of his hands as Christ impressed His upon the 
religion He founded. No imaginary character could have 
inspired thousands to suffer frightful torments, and even 
lay down their lives, solely for his sake. 

No, Christ was no myth. He lived, preached, and 
wrought miracles in what is now the Holy Land. He was 
crucified at the demand of the Jews ; on the third day after 



268 Justification 

His death He rose from His tomb. These facts are so well 
established that no one unless he closes his eyes can fail 
to see them. Christ, moreover, was the eternal Son of 
God. Therefore Christianity rests for support on the in- 
carnate life of God Himself. (See ''Christ's Divinity.") 

JUSTIFICATIOlSr 

Lutheran View. — "The doctrine of justifica- 
tion by faith alone is the new experience of sal- 
vation [Heilserfahrung] first enjoyed by Luther 
and then transmitted to the Church." — Leim- 
bach's "Hilfbuch." 

The Catholic Doctrine. — A Catholic reader might 
easily conclude from the above quotation that if this ' ' sal- 
vation experience ' ' was first felt by Luther, Christ and the 
apostles must have known nothing about it ; but Herr Leim- 
bach has a theory about the history of this Protestant doc- 
trine of justification. He informs us that "the Church, 
even in the early days of its history, fell into error and 
ceased to teach the doctrine about the appropriating of 
salvation. ' ' If that be the case we can only say that Christ 
failed to guard His Church from error, despite the fact 
that He had promised to enlighten it through the teaching 
of the Holy Spirit. "When He, the Spirit of truth, is 
come He will teach you all truth" (John xvi. 13). In 
giving His apostles their commission to preach He said 
to them : ' ' Going, therefore, teach ye all nations . . . teach- 
ing them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 
manded you, and behold I am with you aU days, even to the 
consummation of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20). He 
sends them forth to teach and promises to be "with" them ; 
but how "with" them except by aiding them in their work 
and preserving their teaching from error? And the aid 
He promised them was to endure to the end of the world. 

The common Evangelical position is that we are justified 
without any merit of ours and by faith alone, whilst ac- 
cording to Catholic teaching we are justified by faith and 
by good works. The Evangelical doctrine has no warrant 
in Scripture. The phrase "by faith alone" does indeed 
occur in Luther's translation of the Bible (Rom. iii. 28), 
but it is not in the original text, and was inserted by 
Luther, 



Justification 269 

The Catholic Church teaches, and has always taught, that 
we must distinguish between a living and a dead faith. 
A living faith — faith animated by charity — justifies, whilst 
a dead faith, or a mere believing in the truths taught, does 
not justify. If Luther meant a dead faith he was in error ; 
if he meant a living faith he had no reason, so far as justi- 
fication went, for separating from the Church. Even if 
Luther meant by faith the act of believing what is re- 
vealed, coupled with a confident surrendering of the soul 
to God and His grace, neither is this sort of faith a living 
faith, nor can it produce justification. St. James expressly 
tells us that ''even as the body without the spirit is dead, 
so also faith without works is dead" (ii. 26). By works 
is meant the observance of the commandments, and the ob- 
servance of the commandments is not a mere act of confi- 
dence of any sort. 

If since the Augsburg Confession of 1530 the Reformers 
have emphasized the necessity of good works also, as spring- 
ing from the true faith, then, again, the Eeformation had 
no reason for existing. If we are obliged, 1. to believe 
what God has revealed, 2. to trust in the grace of Christ, 
3. to love God, which implies the observance of His com- 
mandments — this is precisely what the Catholic Church 
required of its members long before the Reformation, and 
it is what it requires to-day. Each and all of the com- 
mandments must be fulfilled if we would be saved. 

As to the text of Rom. iii. 28, "For we account a man 
to be justified by faith without the works of the law, ' ' very 
little need be said to set it in its true light. In the first 
place, the word "alone" which Luther introduces after 
the word "faith" is, in some sense, implied by the context, 
but Luther had no right to insert it, as it would be mis- 
leading; for he misinterprets both the word "faith" and 
the phrase, "works of the law." By "works of the law" 
St. Paul means the works of the Mosaic law — circumcision, 
bloody sacrifices, and the like. By "faith" he means a 
living faith, which necessarily includes the observance of 
God's commandments, or good works. 

As Christians since Luther's time have been disputing 
with one another on the question. How is the sinner justi- 
fied before Ood, and as each of the numerous parties in 
the strife appeals to Scripture for proof of its position, the 
question naturally arises, Whom has God appointed to 



270 Justification 

settle so vital a question? The answer can be no other than 
this : Questions of doctrine are to he settled hy the Church 
established hy Christ — by the Church which He commis- 
sioned to preach the truth, the Church which is the ' ' pillar 
and ground of truth. " ' ' He that heareth you heareth Me, 
and he that despiseth you despiseth Me; and he that de- 
spiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me. " " Go ye into the 
whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He 
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that 
believeth not shall be condemned." 

Peter and the other apostles were the teaching body ap- 
pointed by Christ. So long as Protestants fail, not to un- 
derstand, but to realize, this truth, and fail to recognize 
in the successors of Peter and the apostles the inheritors 
of the teaching office in the Church, so long will it be im- 
possible for our separated brethren and us to come to an 
agreement on other questions. 

Where the Bible does not decide a question there yet re- 
mains a tribunal that can decide it. A part of that Bible to 
which Protestants appeal as to a final arbiter in questions 
of faith — the New Testament — is a creation of the Church, 
and owes its existence to the teaching office of the Church. 
It is indeed the work of God, but of God as inspiring the 
teachers of the Church ; and the inspiration that guided the 
Church as to what it should teach in script must be sup- 
posed to guide the Church in its interpretation of what it 
has written. 

Hence it is often quite unprofitable to dispute with Prot- 
estants on such questions as Justification, the Sacrifice of 
the Mass, the Veneration of Saints, Purgatory, Indulgences, 
Celibacy. The paramount question is this: Where is that 
teaching authority whose utterances must have no uncer- 
tain ring, but must be a certain guide to salvation and 
must be listened to and obeyed? Where is that Church 
which was founded on Peter — that Church which is the 
*'piUar and ground of truth"? If that question remains 
unsettled it is difficult, for the most part, to arrive at a 
solution of others. Once it is settled, I have an infallible 
guide on the subject of Purgatory, Indulgences, and other 
points of controversy. The Church must be infallible since 
I have Christ's command to believe it and obey it. Now 
the Catholic Church is the only church that even lays 
claim to possessing such infallible authority. Therefore 



Labor Unions 271 

the Catholic Church is the only one whose teaching can be 
accepted as authoritative and as decisive in matters of con- 
troversy. 

LABOR UNIONS 

A False Principle. — Strikes, boycotts, and 
other such expedients employed by labor unions, 
are the only v^reapons they can wield in their 
defense. Why may they not be used in the most 
effective way possible? In time of war one can 
not be overnice in his choice of means to attain 
his end. 

The Truth. — We are not going to write a dissertation 
on labor unions. We are only anxious to guard our work- 
ingmen against pernicious principles, which are not always 
enunciated as plainly or as boldly as they are above, but 
which are nevertheless embodied in outward acts. There 
is danger of all democratic movements of our day being 
guided by the principle that everything is right that suc- 
ceeds — that the great thing is to "get there," no matter 
by what way. But there is a right and a wrong in col- 
lective action as well as in individual action, and, funda- 
mentally, both are to be governed by the same moral prin- 
ciples. 

Strikes. — The assumption that there is a state of real 
warfare between employers and employed is, unfortunately, 
in our day an actual factor in the working out of the 
problems of industrial life ; so that we are dealing here with 
no chimera. When a strike is ordered it is often taken for 
granted that the strikers are at liberty to do pretty much 
as an army does in invading hostile territory ; and yet not 
even the laws of civilized warfare are observed. No laws 
of any kind govern the action of a mass of men whose prin- 
ciple is, ' ' Get what you can, no matter how. ' ' 

A strike is not a war. A war is the extremest of meas- 
ures used to attain human ends. Violence is its very es- 
sence. Its immediate object is to kill, capture, or starve 
as many of the enemy as possible. Nothing can justif}^ it 
but an evil threatened or endured as great or greater than 
the evil inflicted by the war. Now in the judgment of 
saner minds the present posture of affairs does not justify 



272 Labor Unions 

anything in the nature of strict warfare, even on a small 
scale. The classes are not separated by any line of demar- 
cation that places them in opposite camps. The working- 
man has sincere friends in the higher classes. The real 
grievances, such as they are, result from conditions that 
can not be changed in a hurry. Pacific methods have 
wrought all the beneficial changes that have affected work- 
ingmen ; and, although there is still a great deal to mend 
in the present situation, workingmen, as a body, have made 
steady progress in bettering their condition. 

It is not, therefore, or at least should not be, a matter 
of two opposing forces, each bent on the destruction of the 
other. The fact is that each of the two classes is indispen- 
sable to the other. Socialists have dreams of a state of 
things in which all distinction of classes will be abolished, 
but, as the reader may see from other parts of this book, 
they are no more than dreams. 

A strike has in it, of course, an element of hostility. 
Harm is done to the employer, and harm is intended. It 
is through the harm done to his business by the strike that 
the strikers hope to compel him to be just. Nevertheless, 
though harm is done and intended, a strike is justifiable 
under certain conditions. Justice forbids me to do harm 
to my fellow-man, but justice to myself may sometimes war- 
rant me in coercing my fellow-man into being just in his 
dealings with me. What form and what measure of co- 
ercion I am allowed to use must depend on circumstances. 
Reckless violence can never be permitted; violence of any 
kind or degree should be the very last resort. 

In cases in which coercion is needful and allowable a 
strike is regarded with favor by the moralist for the fol- 
lowing reasons: 1. It is the form of coercion furthest re- 
moved from turbulence and anarchy. 2. It is, after all, 
only the exercise of the workingman's natural right to 
work or to refuse to work for any particular employer. 
But let us not be misunderstood on this point. From a 
moral point of view there is, of course, a great difference 
between the case of a single workman withdrawing from 
the service of any particular employer and that of a com- 
hination of workmen doing the same. In the first case, at 
least ordinarily, no harm is done the employer, and the 
workman exercises his natural right; but the combination 
inflicts an injury, and the injury is intended — though pre- 



Labor Unions 273 

sumably not for its own sake; and although each member 
of the combination has a natural right to leave the service 
of his employer he has no right of any kind to conspire 
with others in the adoption of a measure entailing injury 
to his employer, unless the common grievance of the work- 
men outweighs the right of the employer to the peaceful 
pursuit of his calling. In a just strike the grievance of the 
employees has, as a matter of fact, such preponderating im- 
portance, and hence it justifies the workingmen in availing 
themselves of their natural right. 

A strike may be just or unjust, and it is just only when 
it is in harmony with the common laws of morality. The 
chief part of the responsibility for unjust strikes rests with 
those who issue orders for them in the labor unions. But 
the men of the rank and file are not machines. They have 
minds of their own and consciences of their own, and the 
moral law forbids them to pay blind obedience to orders 
on the pretext that the responsibility is not theirs but their 
officers'. The following rules should be carefully kept in 
mind: 

1. A strike should not he resorted to ivhen milder ex- 
pedients are available. Arbitration is a means of settle- 
ment that has been successful in many cases. Why can it 
not be so in all cases ? Things have come to a strange pass 
when the decision of three, five, or seven men chosen as 
arbiters by the mutual consent of the contending parties 
can not be trusted. A refusal to accept arbitration usually 
gives rise to the suspicion that the party refusing has little 
reliance on the justice of its cause and is determined to im- 
pose its will on the other party. 

2. The demands of the strikers should he reasonable. 
When wages are unreasonably low, when negotiations on 
the subject have resulted in nothing, and when more pacific 
measures are not within reach, a strike would ordinarily 
be justifiable. When wages are reasonably high, and espe- 
cially when they procure for the workingman some of the 
comforts of life, a strike would very seldom be justifiable. 
It is often difficult to decide in particular cases whether or 
not wages are unreasonably low; but surely the principle 
would be a false one that should hold the workingman 
down to a wage that secures for him only the bare neces- 
saries of life. Every manual laborer is entitled to a mod- 
erate share in the simplest comforts of life and should be 



274 Labor Unions 

able to lay aside a little for a rainy day. Hence any re- 
fusal of wages necessary for the procuring of these advan- 
tages would justify a strike, unless, of course, other cir- 
cumstances in the case forbade one. 

The same rule applies to the demand for shorter hours 
of work. To have to toil the livelong day is unreasonable. 
The workingman is entitled to a moderate amount of leis- 
ure. How much can or ought to be allowed him must de- 
pend on circumstances. There can be no fixed rule, and 
the insistence on a fixed rule, especially for all working- 
men, irrespective of circumstances, may easily be unjust 
to employers. A demand for eight hours' daily labor for 
all classes of workingmen is probably quite arbitrary. 

3. Strikes should not he accompanied hy violence or hy 
any form of physical coercion. ^Tien violence is added to 
abstention from labor a strike ceases to be a strike and be- 
comes a state of war. If even a peaceful strike can be re- 
sorted to only for grave reasons, the added element of 
violence and disorder, including as it does injury to person 
and property, can be justified only by exceptionally grave 
reasons. Under ordinary circumstances the use of destruc- 
tive violence, even on a small scale, is not allowable. 

Even the milder forms of personal violence or coercion, 
such as the preventing of a non-striker from entering the 
workshop, or the driving him from his work, are an in- 
vasion of personal liberty which can rarely be justified and 
should rarely occur. There may be cases in which the 
non-striker acts a very selfish part and is bound in charity 
to cooperate with the strikers, but the latter are as a rule 
bound to respect his independence. The necessities of his 
family may oblige him to work, or he may have conscien- 
tious scruples about engaging in the strike ; but in anything 
like ordinary circumstances he has a right to decide whether 
he shall work or not. and it would take a very strong reason 
based on the common good to justify his being coerced into 
abstention from work. 

4. Prohahility of success is necessary for the justification 
of a strike. It stands to reason that when the chances are 
considerably against the success of a strike, a measure en- 
tailing so much loss to employer and employed can not 
be defended. 

5. A sympathetic strike is less easily justified than a pri- 
ynary one. A sympathetic strike is one in which the strikers 



Labor Unions 275 

have no grievance of their own but quit work in order to 
help on a strike by another set of workmen, either under 
the same or under another employer. If sympathetic 
strikes are defended on the principle that a man may help 
his fellow-men in their just contests, it must be remembered 
that helping the oppressed is one thing, injuring the in- 
nocent another. If I help A against B, who is injuring 
him, it does not follow that I can injure C, who is not con- 
cerned in the affair. In some cases it would be lawful for 
one class or set of workmen to help by a sympathetic strike 
another set or class of workmen in the same establishment 
engaged in a just strike ; for if the strike is just in the case 
of the primary strikers their grievance may be taken up by 
their sympathizers ; but it is very difficult to find a reason 
justifying a strike directed against an employer who is 
fair in his dealings with his own workmen. The fact that 
he furnishes material to an employer against whom a just 
strike is being maintained is not a sufficient reason for a 
strike, except in those very rare cases in which charity 
would oblige him to help the oppressed, to his own detri- 
ment, and in which pressure might be brought to bear upon 
him to bring him to a sense of his duty. 

Boycotts. — The moral bearings of boycotts are much the 
same as those of strikes. A boycott is an agreement among 
several or many to abstain from dealing with a person in 
business or from having intercourse with him in profes- 
sional or social life. As it consists in simple abstention 
but yet entails an injury, it falls under the same moral 
rules as the strike. It is rarely allowable ; and all the more 
rarely as the common good is seriously threatened by the 
tendency to anarchy begotten of such practices. The sec- 
ondary boycott, as it is called, is less rarely justified than 
the primary, or ordinary, boycott. It is directed against 
one who refuses to break off intercourse with a person who 
is primarily boycotted; against a tradesman, for instance, 
who continues to supply material for manufacture to an 
establishment that is under a boycott. The secondary boy- 
cott is an invasion of personal liberty which none but the 
very gravest reasons can justify. 

A practice akin to boycotting is the refusal of union 
men to work in the same shop as non-union men. It is a 
restriction of the opportunities of non-union workingmen 
which it takes a great deal to justify. Ordinarily, no one 



276 Labor Unions 

is obliged to join a labor union, and there may be eases 
in which conscience forbids; and although the union may 
be considerably hampered by the fact that non-union men 
are very numerous, the interests and principles of the latter 
are nevertheless to be respected. There may, possibly, be 
very exceptional cases in which all workingmen in one 
trade are in duty bound to join the labor union, but they 
are not the ordinary cases. The dictation of how many 
apprentices shall be employed in one establishment has the 
same moral bearings as most of the other practices of union- 
ists. An overplus of apprentices may be an evil, but it is 
one that must be borne with, except when it has reached 
the extreme of severity. The opportunities of those who 
aspire to learn an honorable trade must not be restricted 
without any great necessity. Attempts to limit the output 
of individual workmen in a manufactory can be excused 
only under exceptional circumstances. The injuring of ma- 
chinery and the destruction of goods is a piece of barbarism 
which all civilized unionists ought to endeavor to block out 
of industrial life. 

In the course of these remarks it must be evident to 
every reader that we have not condemned without any 
discrimination the practices of strikers and boycotters. The 
more weighty the grievance, and the more removed the tac- 
tics from injustice and barbarism, the more easily is the 
use of so extreme a measure as a strike or a boycott allowed. 
The cause for which strikers or boycotters contend in any 
particular case may be a just one, and a strike or a boy- 
cott may be the only available means of contending for it. 
But who will decide the justice of the cause or the rectitude 
of the methods employed? Even the trained moralist and 
the expert in economics would often find it difficult to de- 
cide whether a strike was justifiable. Shall, then, the de- 
cision be intrusted to the untrained judgments of a promis- 
cuous mass of workingmen, who are all interested parties 
and who are not disposed to enter into the views of their 
opponents? And is it not well known that some of the 
leaders in such affairs are indifferent to the methods they 
adopt and consider that all is grist that comes to their 
mill? 

These considerations should make it evident that, al- 
though in the abstract a strike may be a perfectly lawful 
procedure, strikes in the concrete should be looked at as- 



Labor Unions 277 

kance, seeing that they foster such pernicious tendencies 
and occasion so much material loss. 

Hence it is the duty of the citizens of a country to do all 
in their power to get rid of strikes, boycotts, and the tyran- 
nous element in labor union procedure. Direct govern- 
mental legislation in the matter of the minimum wage, or 
of the maximum price of commodities, or of the length of a 
laborer's work-day, may be considered by some as a last 
resort in any country of acknowledged free institutions, 
but things are drifting in that precise direction, and we, 
for our part, can not see the unwisdom of subjecting such 
legislation to the test of experience. Little or no objection 
can be urged against indirect legislation ; such, for instance, 
as would oblige the parties in a dispute to submit their case 
to arbitration and abide by the decision given. 

Strikes contain a comment on the times which every 
man of reflection should take to heart. Sharp opposition 
between the classes is rooted partly, it is true, in the con- 
ditions of social and industrial life, but it is no less deeply 
rooted in the perverse tendencies of the classes themselves. 
Ultra-democracy on the one side and ultra-aristocracy on 
the other, both aggravated by the rapid decrease of religious 
influence, are accountable at least for the fact that the mu- 
tual opposition of the classes has reached so acute a stage ; 
and it is only by a reversal of these conditions that things 
can be thoroughly and permanently righted. We do not 
despair of the power of governments to mitigate the social 
distemper, but governmental remedies rarely go to the 
heart of such diseases. Each of the two great classes must 
be taught, by every means available, its own proper ideals ; 
and this education of the classes must be begun in the 
schoolroom and at the altar. Writers of our day frequently 
point to the guilds of the Middle Ages as teaching an ob- 
ject-lesson on the conditions of labor and the relations be- 
tween employers and employed, but writers and readers 
alike should remember that the guilds were religious to 
the core and that religious charity was the ultimate prin- 
ciple of their inner life and of their external influence. 



278 Latin in the Liturgy 

LATIN IN THE LITURGY 

Objection. — Why use Latin in the liturgy? 
Why may not English-speaking nations use their 
own language, as the Greeks and Syrians use 
theirs ? Latin is a strange tongue to the vast ma- 
jority of worshipers. 

The Answer. — The Catholic Church is not a national 
church; it is a Church for all nations under the sun. Uni- 
versality is one of the marks by which it is distinguished 
from all other churches bearing the name of Christian. 
Hence a universal language 'is necessary in its public wor- 
ship. In modern business life the absence of a universal 
language is much deplored, and various attempts have been 
made to invent one. For the Catholic Church, in which the 
necessity of such a language is much more urgent, a uni- 
versal language has been providentially supplied. The pos- 
session of a common language is essential, not to the 
existence of the Church, but to its well-being. Let us 
try to realize what this means in the actual life of the 
Church. 

In the first place, the words of the Mass are fixed, stereo- 
typed, and in the more essential parts of the Mass are as 
ancient as the Church itself. They remain unchanged be- 
cause they are so intimately connected with the unchange- 
able sacrifice. Now the greater the tendency to multiply 
vernacular versions the greater the danger of departing 
from the meaning of the original, and the Church, for the 
best of reasons, has always been jealous of any change in 
her consecrated formulae. In the case of Greeks and Syr- 
ians the danger is reduced to the minimum, as the Eastern 
nations are proverbial for their conservative spirit. 

In the second place, the use of one language in the Mass 
is a matter of convenience amounting almost to a necessity. 
There is scarcely a single passage in the text of the Mass 
that is not a subject of rubrical legislation. The decisions 
of Roman congregations (standing committees of cardinals) 
and the writings of rubricists on the language of the Mass 
are voluminous. Now, suppose they had to deal, not with 
one language but with hundreds: difficulties would multi- 
ply indefinitely. 

Furthermore, in the case of bishops and priests travel- 



Latin in the Liturgy 279 

ing in foreign countries the offering of the sacrifice of the 
Mass would be attended with the greatest difficulty. The 
travelers would have to know the language of every coun- 
try they passed through, unless they carried their Mass- 
books with them, which would be very inconvenient ; and 
even if they did so they could not be understood by the 
servers, whilst the people would be surprised, perhaps 
shocked, by the strange sounds accompanying the sacred 
rites ; and they certainly would not understand the words 
any better than our English congregations understand the 
Latin. A Catholic priest can celebrate the Holy Sacrifice 
in nearly every part of the world in which he happens to 
be traveling; and, we may add, a Catholic layman on a 
foreign strand can have the delicious feeling of being at 
home once he enters a church to hear Mass. 

The stock objection against the use of Latin is that it 
is not understood by the congregation. This objection was 
never made by any one who was familiar with Catholic life 
and devotion. Did the objector ever see a Catholic con- 
gregation hearing Mass? Did he ever see the people ap- 
proaching the altar-rail to receive holy communion? If 
he did he must have been convinced that language was an 
insignificant thing compared with the great Action that 
was being performed. Our separated brethren have lost 
their grasp of the idea of sacrifice as connected with re- 
ligion. They know nothing of the great Action by which 
the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in an unbloody 
form. To them language is everything, and consequently 
the linguistic objection appeals to them with double force. 

And yet Catholics might stake their case upon the as- 
sertion that they are accustomed to an intelligible language 
in the services of their Church. The writer of the present 
article has never known a day from childhood, and after 
he had learned to read his English prayer-book, when he 
did not know the meaning of every sentence the priest ut- 
tered at the altar. The meaning of the Latin was given 
in the English equivalent; and besides the English ren- 
dering there were indications at intervals of what was go- 
ing forward at the altar, whilst in some prayer-books there 
were explanations of the several parts of the Mass consid- 
ered as commemorations of distinct parts of Christ's pas- 
sion. At solemn Masses he had the additional pleasure and 
advantage of hearing a language musical in itself rendered 



280 Marriage a Sacrament 

doubly musical by the alternate chant of sanctuary and 
choir. 

If all this is true the language difficulty is a mere ab- 
stract or a priori one, and is easily dissolved by the applica- 
tion of one or two facts. What we have said of the Mass 
is applicable to the Vespers and the Benediction of the 
Blessed Sacrament. But it must not be forgotten that 
apart from the prayer-book the vernacular is not by any 
means banished from our churches. Not only are the Gos- 
pel and Epistle read to the people in English and the ser- 
mon or instruction given in English, but there are many 
public devotions, both on Sundays and on week-days, which 
are exclusively in English. There is probably more Eng- 
lish heard in Catholic churches in a week than in Prot- 
estant churches in a month. 

LOURDES 

See ''Miracles." 



MARRIAGE A SACRAMENT 

Ultra-Protestant Viev^r. — "Marriage is an out- 
ward, material thing, like any other secular busi- 
ness." "Marriage, with all that appertains to it, 
is a temporal thing and does not concern the 
Church at all, except in so far as it affects the 
conscience." — Luther. 

Catholic Teaching. — Language like the above, held by 
the founder of Protestantism, brings the sanctity of mar. 
riage very near to the low-water mark of degradation. 
Fancy St. Paul writing in that strain — especially after the 
extraordinary passage occurring in the fifth chapter of the 
Epistle to the Ephesians (22-33). 

"Let women," he says, ''be subject to their husbands, 
as to the Lord: because the husband is the head of the wife 
as Christ is the head of the Church. He is the saviour of 
his body. Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ, so 
also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Hus- 
bands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church and 
delivered Himself up for it; that He might sanctify it, 
cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life : that 



Marriage a Sacrament 281 

He might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not hav- 
ing spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should 
be holy and without blemish. So also ought men to love 
their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife 
loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh, but 
nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the 
Church, because we are members of His body, of His fiesh 
and of His bones. For this cause shall a man leave his 
father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they 
shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament; but I 
speak in Christ and in the Church. ' ' 

St. Paul is using no mere figure of speech. He is speak- 
ing of a fact, on which he is basing most important pre- 
cepts. The union of husband and wife is here represented 
as having a special mystical relation to the union between 
Christ ^nd the Church ; that is to say, the union by which 
Christ sanctifies the Church by the grace of the Holy Spirit 
and makes it in some degree like to Himself. The intimate 
union between husband and wife is made a sort of counter- 
part of the sublime mystical union subsisting between 
Christ and His Spouse the Church. And '^this is a great 
sacrament'' (or "mystery," as the Greek version has it) 
in its likeness to the union between Christ and His Church. 

Now this is not an invention of St. Paul's. He could 
teach nothing but what was revealed. Nothing short of 
revelation could have justified him in raising Matrimony 
to so high a level of sanctity. There is indeed a sacredness 
about marriage even as a natural contract, and its obliga- 
tions are no less sacred; but nothing less than a divine 
ordinance could have exalted it to the level at which we 
find it in the text of St. Paul, wherein it is a holy thing, 
a mystery, a sacrament — bearing a special resemblance, 
though inferior, to the union between the Son of God and 
the members of His mystical body. 

The special sacredness of marriage is clearly conveyed by 
the text ; but that it is also a sacrament in the ecclesiastical 
meaning of the word is no less clearly and forcibly im- 
plied. A sacrament in this stricter sense is not a mere 
symbol; it does not merely stand for or represent a grace 
communicated ; it also confers the grace which it symbol- 
izes. It is a direct sanctifying medium itself. A little re- 
flection will show that St. Paul understood Matrimony to 
be all this and nothing less. "Because the husband is the 



282 Marriage a Sacrament 

head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church. ' ' Let 
these words be weighed, and let them be considered in con- 
nection with the rest of the passage quoted and it must be 
plain — especially to any one who knows how St. Paul 
speaks in other places of Christ's connection with the 
Church — that Christ is here conceived as the head of the 
mystical body of which the faithful of His Church are the 
limbs or members, and which He as the principal and life- 
giving part of that body makes holy and like to Himself 
by the infusion of the grace of the Holy Spirit. Now, if 
the union between husband and wife is likened to that be- 
tween Christ and His Church, it follows that JMatrimony 
sanctifies and enriches with divine grace, and is therefore 
one of the sacraments of God's Church. Add to this that 
it is hardly possible that St. Paul would call the marriage 
union a great mystery of the new dispensation if it were 
not raised to a level with the great channels of grace in 
the Church. 

Such was the high conception of marriage entertained 
by the Apostle of the Gentiles; but similar testimony to 
the sacramental character of Matrimony is borne by the 
Fathers of the Church. "Amongst all men and in all na- 
tions," says St. Augustine, "the blessing of wedlock is in 
the possessing of offspring and in the fidelity of chastity; 
but as regards the people of God it is also in the holiness 
of the sacrament.'''^ That this holiness has the same source 
as that indicated by the above text of St. Paul is plain from 
what the same Doctor says in his work on "Marriage and 
Concupiscence, '^ c. 17, n. l9. Speaking of such fidelity as 
heathens observe in their marriage relations, he says that 
in such marriages "there is indeed a natural good, yet car- 
nal," but he adds that "the member of Christ" or the 
member of His mystical body, has supernatural motives 
for cherishing conjugal fidelity. He evidently understands 
marriage to be a special and specific participation in the 
union between the divine Head and the members of His 
mystical body of which St. Paul so often speaks, which 
union is cemented by divine grace. 

In the same work, c. 10, n. 11, still speaking of Matri- 
mony as a sacrament, he compares its effect to that of Bap- 
tism. The effect of the sacrament is permanent, he says, 

iDe Bono Conj., e. 24, n. 32. 



Marriage a Sacrament 283 

and its binding force remains even after either party has 
proved unfaithful, ''just as the soul of the apostate from 
the Faith, though untrue to his nuptials with Christ 
through his loss of faith, does not lose the sacrament of 
faith which he received through the laver of regeneration. ' ' 
Both sacraments are here described as vehicles of divine 
grace. The saint in his work ''De Bono Conjugali," c. 34, 
n. 32, compares the effect of Matrimony to that of Holy 
Orders; and St. Paul tells us that Orders are a vehicle of 
grace when he bids Timothy to ''stir up the grace of God 
which is in thee by the imposition of my hands." 

St. Cyril of Alexandria, speaking of the presence of Our 
Lord at the marriage feast at Cana, says that "it was be- 
fitting that He who was to renew the very nature of man 
and to restore all nature to a better state should not only 
bestow a blessing on those who had been already called into 
life, but also prepare beforehand that grace for all those 
not yet born, and make their entrance into existence holy. ' '^ 
In other words, it was fitting that as God had provided in 
Baptism a means of sanctification at the birth of the child, 
so in Matrimony the future progeny of the married couple 
should be sanctified in its origin, which is the marriage con- 
tract. What can this mean but the specific grace conferred 
by the sacrament of Matrimony? 

It is not surprising, then, that the Church, which is at 
once the heir and the interpreter of its own teaching, should 
have declared, when occasion arose, the true meaning of 
these utterances of the Fathers. In the Second Council of 
Lyons, in the Council of Florence, and in the Council of 
Trent, the bishops of the Catholic Church solemnly defined 
that Matrimony is one of the seven sacraments of the 
Church of Christ. Moreover the same doctrine has always 
been held, not only by the Latin, but also by all the Eastern 
churches; and in the Second Council of Lyons, in which 
for the first time a reconciliation was effected between the 
Latins and the Greeks, the latter signed the declaration 
that there were seven sacraments and that one of the seven 
was Matrimony. 

No one who realizes the significance of the sacramental 
character of Matrimony can fail to see how divinely wise 
was the provision made for the hallowing of a union which 

1 Comm. in Joan., 1, 2. 



284 Mass, The 

is so easily degraded and deformed. It is made a holy 
thing, reflecting as it does the holiest conceivable union, 
which is that subsisting between Christ and His Spouse the 
Church. Those who are united by it are made sharers of 
the grace of that higher union, and the grace that descends 
upon them overflows, as it were, upon their offspring. How 
admirable a means is supplied in true Christian wedlock 
for neutralizing the effects of human imperfections in the 
persons so united and for perpetuating the fidelity which 
they have pledged to one another on entering that holy 
state. Who can fail to see that the one great hope of so- 
ciety, as such, lies in the Catholic conception of Matrimony 1 

MARRIAGE INDISSOLUBLE 

See *' Divorce," ''Free Love," and ''Marriage a Sacra- 
ment. ' ' 

MASS, THE 

Protestant View. — "The popish sacrifice of the 
Mass, as they call it, is most abominably injuri- 
ous to Christ's one only sacrifice, the alone pro- 
pitiation for all the sins of the elect." — Westmin- 
ster Confession of Faith (Calvinistic). 

Catholic Doctrine. — Christianity without a sacrifice 
would be an anomaly in the history of religion; for never 
before the advent of Protestantism was there a religion 
without a sacrifice. Without a sacrifice the Christian re- 
ligion would be strikingly defective, as it would lack the 
most perfect form of worship. 

A sacrifice is an act of divine worship which consists in 
the destroying, wholly or partially, of a sensible substance, 
and thus offering it to God in acknowledgment of His sov^ 
ereign dominion over all things. Of all acts of homage 
sacrifice is not only the most excellent but the only one 
offered exclusively to God. All others, such as bowing, 
kneeling, or incensing, may be offered to God's creatures, 
but sacrifice is offered to God alone ; signifying, as it does 
by its very nature, the acknowledgment of God as the sov- 
ereign Lord of all things. 

The sacrifice of the ]\Iass, so far from being injurious to 



Mass, The 285 

the sacrifice of the cross, is really one and the same sacrifice 
as that of the cross. The victim is the same ; the priest is 
the same, being no other than Christ Jesus Himself, though 
as victim He is offered ministerially by the hands of His 
creatures. In the sacrifice of the Mass, however, instead 
of a real shedding of blood there is a mystical separation 
of the precious blood from the sacred body ; and the Mass, 
instead of purchasing redemption for us, as did the sacri- 
fice of the cross, rather applies to our souls the merits of 
the sacrifice of the cross. 

It is not Catholic teaching that once Christ died for us 
we were saved without any cooperation on our part. A 
free cooperation with the grace of redemption is indispen- 
sable. Now, Catholics are taught that in this cooperation 
we are aided by the sacraments, and that in one of the 
sacraments Our Lord has found a means of remaining in 
the midst of His creation, offering Himself as a perpetual 
victim, and enabling us to cooperate with His redemption 
by our partaking of the victim from off the altar of sacri- 
fice. 

Where, then, is the injury done ''to Christ's one only 
sacrifice?" Is there any implication of its inefficacy in 
the fact that the sacrifice of the Mass applies its merits to 
the individual soul? A Calvinist should not censure such 
application if he holds to the declaration of the Westmin- 
ster Confession that, although Christ died for the justifica- 
tion of the elect, "nevertheless they are not justified until 
the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ 
unto them." The efficacy of the sacrifice of the altar does 
not exclude, but rather includes, the action of the Holy 
Ghost, and neither the one nor the other is injurious "to 
Christ's one only sacrifice." Still less is it "abominably" 
injurious to it. 

But the best proof that the sacrifice of the Mass does no 
injury to the sacrifice of the cross is found in the fact that 
the sacrifice of the Mass is the fulfilment of prophecy and 
that it was instituted as a sacrifice by our divine Lord Him- 
self. 

In the sacrifice of the Mass are verified the memorable 
words of the prophet Malachy. In the first chapter of his 
prophecy he reproaches the Jewish priesthood for the man- 
ner in which they offer sacrifice and announces the aboli- 
tion of their sacrifices and of their priesthood in favor of 



286 Mass, The 

a sacrifice and priesthood which shall no longer be confined 
to the Jewish nation but shall be offered by the Gentiles 
and throughout the world. ''For," he says, ''from the 
rising of the sun even to the going down My name is great 
among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice 
and there is offered to My name a clean oblation: for My 
name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts" 

(V. 11). 

The prophet here predicts a sacrifice that shall be offered 
after the coming of the Messias, for he is evidently speak- 
ing of a time when God shall be known and His name be 
magnified by the Gentiles. But what sacrifice can be meant 
if not the sacrifice of the Mass ? It is the only religious rite 
in Messianic times that has ever been associated with the 
idea of sacrifice ; and certainly to-day from the rising of 
the sun to the going down, i.e., from East to West, or "in 
every place, ' ' or throughout the world, is offered the sacri- 
fice of the Mass. 

The Eucharistic sacrifice also fulfils the prediction of the 
Eoyal Prophet : ' ' Thou art a priest forever according to the 
order of Melchisedech " (Ps. cix. 4). For a priest accord- 
ing to the order of Melchisedech would be expected to offer 
a sacrifice in some way resembling the sacrifice offered by 
Melchisedech. Now we are told in Genesis xiv. 18, that 
the sacrifice peculiar to that priest consisted in the obla- 
tion of bread and wine. Hence we should expect to find 
Christ offering a sacrifice which, at least in its outward 
aspect, would be the same. But where can we find any 
realization of this idea but in the institution of the Eucha- 
ristic sacrifice at the Last Supper? 

"We may add that the idea of Christ's priesthood accord- 
ing to the order of Melchisedech was so often repeated and 
enlarged upon by the writers of the New Testament that 
the way in which the words of the Eoyal Prophet were 
verified could have been no secret to them : they must have 
associated the priesthood and sacrifice predicted by him 
with what they saw daily upon their altars. They must 
have seen in what was offered daily to God under the 
species of bread and wine an oblation which was the ful- 
filment of the typical sacrifice of Melchisedech. 

A study of the various narratives of the institution of 
the Eucharist as given by the sacred writers will show that 
a rite was inaugurated at the Last Supper which must 



Mass, The 287 

have been of the nature of a sacrifice. The passages bear- 
ing on the institution are found in St. Luke (xxii. 19, 20), 
St. Mark (xiv. 22-25), St. Matthew (xxvi. 26-29), and St. 
Paul (1 Cor. xi. 23-25). The sacrificial character of the 
act is evidenced especially by the Greek text of St. Luke, 
particularly in the twentieth verse, which may be trans- 
lated as follows : * * In like manner the chalice also, after He 
had supped, saying. This is the chalice, the new testament 
in My blood, which [chalice] is being poured out for you." 
The chalice was being drained, or its contents were being 
poured out, at the very moment when those words were 
uttered, and consequently the words must refer to the 
action. The significance of the action is shown in the words 
which reveal its end or purpose : ' ' for you, " as in St. Luke, 
"for many," as in St. Mark, and ''for many unto the re- 
mission of sins," as St. Matthew has it. 

Here, then, we find Our Lord giving His apostles His 
precious blood and telling them that it was being poured 
out for them unto the remission of sins. This, moreover, 
He bade them do in remembrance of Himself. Is it not 
clear that He is instituting a sacrifice? We find all the 
requisites of a sacrifice in the pouring out of His life-blood 
for the remission of sins. If such words as these were 
found in any part of Scripture which was not a battle- 
ground for controversialists we venture to say they would 
have but one interpretation. This interpretation of St. 
Luke's text is borne out by the wording of the Greek texts 
of the other two evangelists. 

Protestants necessarily take a different view of the mean- 
ing of these passages. The words which we have translated 
literally, "This is the chalice, the new testament in My 
blood, which chalice is being poured out for you, ' ' they in- 
terpret as meaning. This is the chalice, etc., which shall 
be poured out on the cross — an interpretation that will 
hardly bear close scrutiny. For, although "chalice" may 
be figuratively used for "contents of a chalice" — as we 
frequently use "cup," "glass," or "bottle" for the wine 
or spirits contained in them — the figurative application of 
the word would be strained beyond reasonable limits by a 
reference to the shedding of blood on the cross, which could 
have no possible relation to a chalice. And besides, the 
present tense used in the Greek texts of three evangelists, 
which we have rendered by "is being poured out" can 



288 Mass, The 

not easily be given a future meaning, as it would naturally 
be referred by the apostles to the actual draining of the 
chalice which was taking place before their eyes. 

True, the words could have a secondary meaning, or 
reference, in harmony with the exclusive Protestant inter- 
pretation. Whilst referring directly and primarily to the 
sacrifice that was being instituted, they could have referred 
secondarily and indirectly to the shedding of the Lord's 
blood on the cross, which was on the eve of taking place. 
To this distinction between primary and secondary ref- 
erence no Catholic theologian can object. According to 
Catholic teaching the two sacrifices are substantially iden- 
tical, though the one is a mystical anticipation of the other. 
Add to the above arguments the following consideration, 
which to some minds may be more convincing than any 
argument based on grammatical interpretation. Our di- 
vine Lord was establishing the New Covenant which was 
to replace the Old. ' * This is the chalice, the new testament 
in My blood" (St. Luke), or ''This is My blood of the new 
testament" (SS. Matthew and Mark). He tells us, in 
other words, that His blood is contained in the chalice 
which He holds in His hands, by which is signified the New 
Covenant He is making with His people. Herein there is 
an allusion to the words of Moses, who was the intermedi- 
ary between God and the children of Israel for the estab- 
lishment of the Old Covenant. ''This," Moses said to the 
people, "is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has 
made with you" — words to which St. Paul alludes in the 
Epistle to the Hebrews (ix. 20). The moment at which 
Our Lord uttered those words at the supper table marked 
the change from the Old Covenant to the New. Moses, 
who was the type, is superseded by Him who has been typi- 
fied. The time of figures and of figurative ceremonies is 
past. The blood of calves and goats which Moses, after 
reading the Law to the people, sprinkled upon the Book 
of the Law and upon the people and the Tabernacle, and 
the blood of victims which was similarly sprinkled after- 
ward in imitation of this initial rite, is now replaced by the 
blood of the Lamb of God. "This is My blood of the new 
testament," "This do in commemoration of Me." 

Is it possible that the great religious rite at this moment 
instituted — one that had to do with the precious blood of 
the Son of God — had no more significance than the empty 



Masss The 289 

types of an age of symbols and figures! Were not the 
religious rites of the Jews figures of the realities to come ? 
Was the real blood of the Old Covenant to be followed only 
by a symbol of reality? Certainly not, is the Protestant 
answer: it was to be followed by the shedding of the real 
blood of the Son of God on the cross; and of the sacrifice 
on the cross He was now only instituting a commemorative 
ceremony which is our present celebration of the Eucharist. 
But if this be the case why did He choose this moment when 
He was performing a rite to which the apostles would nat- 
urally think He referred — especially as the grammatical 
force of His words seemed to confirm them in that impres- 
sion? ''This is My body which is being given for you" 
(at this moment, of course) — or which *'is being broken 
for you" (at this moment, and as bread might be broken). 
"This is the chalice . . . which is being poured out for 
you." And why does He so explicitly say "This is My 
body" — "This is My blood" and thus seem to indicate a 
mystical separation of the body and the blood and conse- 
quently a mystical though real sacrifice? And then, too, 
at this solemn moment, when He repeats the words of 
Moses in their new sense, ''This is the blood of the cove- 
nant which the Lord has made with you," what a com- 
paratively insignificant ceremony is supposed by our Prot- 
estant friends to have been instituted, one consisting in the 
eating of a piece of bread and in the taking of a sip of 
wine, which ceremony is strangely supposed to remind one 
of the crucifixion ! It is true that in the Catholic concep- 
tion of the Eucharist the rite performed is a memorial of 
the passion, as Our Lord intended it should be ; but in the 
Catholic rite the act performed does of its nature symbolize 
the event of which it is a memorial. In the sacrifice of the 
Mass a real change takes place. What a moment ago was 
bread and wine is now the body and blood of the Lord. 
And although He is present whole and entire under either 
species, and although no intrinsic change has taken place 
in the living and impassible humanity of the Saviour, 
nevertheless what is called a mystical separation of the 
body and blood takes place, inasmuch as by the words of 
the first part of the consecration, ' ' This is My body, ' ' only 
the body is present, and by virtue of the other words, 
"This is My blood," only the blood is present. The act 
itself, therefore, by its very nature recalls the actual sepa- 



290 Mass, The 

ration of the precious blood from the sacred body of the 
Lord during the passion. 

In the Anglican and Calvinistic ceremony no change of 
any kind, physical or sacramental, occurs, and hence there 
is nothing but the intention of the communicant to make 
the partaking of bread and wine different from any ordi- 
nary repast. This, surely, is little in harmony with any 
other divine institution of a commemorative kind, in which 
the ceremony instituted is a natural reminder of the thing 
commemorated and symbolized. 

Then, too, in the Catholic view of the Eucharistic rite, the 
perpetual offering of the real blood of the Lamb of God 
is an act of worship which is a fitting and natural realiza- 
tion of the types embodied in the shedding of the blood of 
inferior victims under the old dispensation. The type 
should not be more real or in any sense greater than the 
thing typified. The sacrificial worship of the Old Law, 
which was a type of the worship of the New, should not be 
followed by a form of worship which is inferior as such to 
its type. No mere memorial service can follow that which 
was the most perfect form of worship, namely, sacrifice. 

Finally, the teaching of the Fathers of the early Church, 
whose united testimony on any question of Christian doc- 
trine should be decisive, is so manifestly in agreement with 
the Catholic teaching that it is difficult to see how any im- 
partial mind can fail to be convinced by it. The teaching 
of the Fathers is so explicit, so clear, so varied in expres- 
sion, that no loophole is left for special pleading regarding 
the interpretation of their words. 

''It is certain," says Grabe, a learned Evangelical di- 
vine of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, ''that 
Irenasus and all whose writings we possess, the Fathers who 
lived, some in the time of the apostles, others shortly after 
them, regarded the Holy Eucharist as the sacrifice of the 
New Law. ' ' Further on he says : ' ' That this was not the pri- 
vate teaching and practice of any particular church or doc- 
tor, but those of the universal Church, which that Church 
received from the apostles, and which the apostles received 
from Christ Himself, is taught expressly by Irenaeus, and 
before him by Justin Martyr, whose words as well as those 
of St. Ignatius, Cyprian, and others there is no need of 
transcribing. ' ' 



Mass, The 291 

He does, however, transcribe one passage from Clement 
of Rome, a pupil of the apostles, and adds in comment: 
''And now, as the writer of this epistle seems to be the very 
Clement whose name St. Paul says (Phil. iv. 3) is in the 
Book of Life, and as he wrote two or three years after the 
martyrdom of Peter and Paul and twenty years before the 
death of St. John, there is scarcely any room for doubt 
that the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Eucharist has come 
to us from the apostles, and should therefore be held as the 
true doctrine, even though we were unable to quote a word 
in its favor from the prophets and apostles." He further 
describes the Protestant doctrine as the ''error of Luther 
and Calvin," and hopes that the leaders of Protestantism, 
seeing the error of their teaching, will restore to public 
usage the old liturgy of the Christian Sacrifice. (See 
Franzelin on the Eucharist, p. 320 f.) 

The celebrated Leibnitz also, distinguished no less as a 
theologian than as a philosopher and a mathematician, a 
Protestant, though laboring for many years for the recon- 
ciliation of his co-religionists with the Catholic Church, 
makes an earnest plea for the acceptance of the Catholic 
doctrine as resting on the authority of the Fathers. ' ' Noth- 
ing appears to be clearer," he says, "than that in [Mel- 
chisedech], when according to the prophetic allegory of 
the Scripture he is said to 'have offered bread and wine,' 
the Eucharistic sacrifice is prefigured. ' ' Much more to the 
same purpose will be found in his "System of Theology," 
in the section on the Eucharistic sacrifice. 

We scarcely need inform the reader of that far-reaching 
movement in England and America which has sent back 
thousands to the works of the early Fathers, to find therein 
the genuine Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. The Oxford 
Movement, which began in the first half of the nineteenth 
century and virtually continues to-day — what was it but 
the recovering of long-lost Catholic truths by the aid of 
those beacon-lights of the early Church? Among the doc- 
trines thus recovered the Catholic teaching on the sacrifice 
of the altar is not by any means the least prominent. 

It is needless to select passages for quotation from the 
rich stores of patristic doctrine on the subject. For Cath- 
olic readers it is unnecessary ; for non- Catholic readers we 
hope it will be sufficient to say that if we filled a book as 
large as the one they are reading, or even larger, with quo- 



292 MasSy The 

tations from the Fathers, every quotation might be ac- 
knowledged as genuine by Protestant experts, although a 
means would be found of escaping from the conclusion 
based upon it. Although in the description of the Eucha- 
ristic sacrifice every variety of expression is used, as though 
the writers wished to arm their readers against the cavil- 
ing methods of modern controversy — although they ex- 
plicitly assert that the very body and blood of Christ are 
offered in sacrifice for the remission of sins — that the sacri- 
fice of the altar can not be offered by any but priests, thus 
distinguishing it from religious rites which are less prop- 
erly called sacrifices — although they employ words in their 
description of the Christian rite which usage confines to 
the designating of a sacrifice in the strictest sense — never- 
theless our Protestant friends are never at a loss for an 
interpretation favoring the diluted form of belief intro- 
duced by the innovators of the sixteenth century. Once 
the Reformers had cast aside the authority of a teaching 
Church, which is the perpetual witness for the true mean- 
ing of Christian forms and ceremonies, they did not hesi- 
tate to interpret the Fathers as they had never been in- 
terpreted before. 

This state of things suggests the following questions: 

1. What kind of language in the Fathers would bring 
conviction to our Anglican and Evangelical friends 1 As it 
is, the Fathers have exhausted the language of plain, di- 
rect, and even realistic description. 

2. If the Fathers held the same doctrine as modern Prot- 
estants why did they use a language so utterly different 
from the language of Protestant theology and devotion? 
How did they avoid lapsing into forms of speech which 
would be recognized to-day as Anglican or Evangelical? 
Here and there, as is quite natural in so large a mass of 
writings, there are passages which are more or less obscure, 
or which to the untrained reader may seem to favor modern 
Protestant views ; but there is scarcely an instance in point 
in which the passage can not be matched by a clear and 
explicit statement of Eoman Catholic doctrine from some 
other part of the author 's writings ; and in point of num- 
ber the dubiously worded passages are perfectly insignifi- 
cant compared with the numerous, clear, and explicit decla- 
rations of Roman Catholic doctrine. 

3. Why does the Eucharistic language of Protestants dif- 



Mass, The 293 

fer from the traditional language which began with the 
apostles, was used by the Fathers, and was handed on un- 
changed to the present hour? What average Anglican or 
Presbyterian of the present day, if he had to compose a 
document on the Eucharist, would word it after the model 
of the famous Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apos- 
tles, which was almost contemporaneous with the apostles? 
In the fourteenth chapter of the Didache we find the fol- 
lowing precept: 

' ' On the Lord 's Day you shall assemble and break bread 
and give thanks, after confessing your sins, in order that 
your sacrifice may be pure. Let no one who is at enmity 
with his friend join you in your assembly till the two be 
reconciled, lest your sacrifice be profaned. For this is the 
sacrifice spoken of by the Lord: 'In every place and time 
offer to Me a pure sacrifice: for a great King am I, says the 
Lord, and wonderful is My name among the Gentiles.' " 

Here the Eucharistic breaking of bread is repeatedly, 
called a sacrifice, and a sacrifice of the strictest type ( Ovaia 
in the original Greek) ; and the prophecy of Malachy is 
appealed to, just as it is in an earlier part of this article : 
' '■ For this is the sacrifice spoken of by the Lord, etc. ' ' This 
is the sacrifice which was to be offered in every place, and 
always, and among the Gentiles. 

Language like that of the Didache is intelligible to Cath- 
olics because it is the language of present Catholic usage; 
and no matter how far back we trace its history we find 
it always the same. Has this traditional language changed 
its meaning in the course of ages? If not, then the doc- 
trine of the early Church is the doctrine of Rome. If it has 
changed its meaning, when did the change take place? If 
I observe that the Church of God has spoken always in 
the same way of its one great act of worship, but am re- 
minded by some Protestant friend that the Church, whilst 
using the same language, has in the course of time changed 
its meaning, I naturally ask, when, how, and under what 
circumstances ? If I am told that the change was too grad- 
ual to enable us to fix the date, I feel that I am being trified 
with. If in the case of our literatures, ancient and modern, 
we can trace with considerable accuracy the history of 
words back through a variety of meanings to the primitive 
meaning and determine approximately the time at which 
any given word began to acquire a new signification, why 



294 Materialism 

can not the same be done in the study of Eucharistic lan- 
guage? The answer is obvious: there are no signs of a 
gradual evolution of meanings; we find the writers of the 
first centuries at pains to explain themselves in a Roman 
Catholic sense no less than the writers of the Roman Cath- 
olic Church of to-day. The truth is that the first change, 
whether in language or in doctrine, was introduced by the 
Reformers. Taking their stand on the Bible and cutting 
themselves adrift from the ever-living witness of the truth 
which Christ intended His Church to be, they soon found 
themselves beyond hailing distance from the thought and 
the language of the rest of Christendom. 

If all the Reformers had had the consistency of Luther 
the state of the controversy would have been simplified. 
Confronted with the testimony of the Fathers of the early 
Church, Luther took the bull by the horns and declared in 
his treatise on the abolition of the Mass that he cared not 
what the Fathers said, but what they ought to have said ! 
And in his treatise on private Masses he said of the testi- 
mony of the Fathers: ''The words and deeds of men we 
reck not of in matters of such moment; for we know that 
the very prophets fell, yes, and the apostles. By the word 
of Christ we judge the Church, the apostles, and even the 
angels themselves ! ' ' 

He can give us no assurance, however, that the "word 
of Christ" had not become the word of Luther before it 
reached his audience. 



MATERIALISM 

A Comfortable Error. — The only practical phi- 
losophy of life is materialism. Teaching as it 
does that all things are matter — that there is no 
soul, no immortality, no virtue, no vice, no 
heaven, no hell — it gives a man his first feeling 
of being released from bondage. Materialism is, 
then, the real redemption of man. 

The Baselessness op Materialism. — It certainly does 
give a man his first keen sense of being an animal. For the 
first time he knows what it is to give full rein to his senses 
and to indulge the fancy that he is rid of all responsibility 
and all liability to punishment. 



Materialism 295 

The wish is often f athi^r to the thought ; and materialism 
does appeal strongly to those who are eager to live the life 
that materialism logically leads to — the life of the animal, 
a life in which all the sensuous appetites are freely in- 
dulged. It appeals to those who would fain be rid of all 
authority, human and divine, and consequently to anarch- 
ists and socialists. It is favored by those who are imbued 
with liberalism and free thought, and whose morbid craving 
for emancipation from restraint leads them to discard 
every notion or principle that implies human responsibility. 

Materialism is the grossest and crudest of errors. It 
carries a man no further than the direct evidence of his 
senses. It is a child's philosophy. No philosophical acu- 
men is required to formulate without proof the proposition : 
All things are matter. And what materialist ever at- 
tempted to do more ? The history of philosophy these past 
three thousand years exhibits periodically the cropping up 
of materialistic systems of philosophy — if philosophy it 
can be called — but who ever heard of anything that pre- 
tended to be a demonstration of any such proposition as 
the following: There is no reality but matter — Everything 
that exists must have dimensions, and must be capable 
of being either felt or seen or smelled or heard or tasted — 
The notion of soul or of spirit is intrinsically absurd. 

If, then, the reader should light upon any one who says 
he is a convinced materialist, let him ask him what has con- 
vinced him. He will answer by appealing to common sense. 
It is absurd, he will say, to suppose that you could not 
touch and feel whatever had any reality, if you could get 
at it. He will add, doubtless, that all the talk one hears 
about immaterial being is either inane philosophizing or 
sheer supersition. On the other hand, if any well-instructed 
Christian is asked to prove the existence of spiritual being 
— as in the case of the human soul — he will give what any 
well-educated person will regard as at least a serious at- 
tempt at a demonstration. He will argue from spiritual 
acts to the spiritual nature of the soul that elicits them. 

Even the small amount of feeble reflection which the 
materialist brings to bear on the subject should convince 
him that, as he is capable of reviewing his sense impressions 
and drawing a conclusion (though a false one), he has a 
faculty within him that raises him above the sphere of sense 
— an intellectual, or spiritual faculty, which argues a 
spiritual soul. 



296 Messias, The 

The subject of mind, or soul, has been explored in our 
day through a new medium of research by the students of 
physiological psychology. The task they have set them- 
selves is to observe and experiment upon every outward 
manifestation of consciousness. Now this science, in the 
hands of impartial investigators (from whom we have 
quoted in other parts of this volume), has shown that when 
experiment has reached its last stage it encounters an im- 
palpable something that can not be explained in terms of 
nerve quiverings or brain secretions — something that tran- 
scends the conditions of matter. We can let this new 
science run its course. It will never be able to get away 
from the spiritual element that works with so much subtlety 
in the midst of the material. (See ''Mind and Matter" 
and ''Soul.") 

MESSIAS, THE 

A Nev7 Error. — The Messias can not be a defi- 
nite person, or a real person of any description. 
The promised Messias is nothing else than the 
blessing that rests upon the Jewish race. Hence 
the Messias has already come. 

The Truth. — Such is the view entertained by many 
Hebrews of the present day. It looks like a desperate shift 
to elude the evidence of the actual coming of the Messias, 
which took place nearly two thousand years ago. Any Jew 
who believes in the sacred writings of his nation and has 
not permitted himself to be infected by the rationalistic 
spirit of interpretation which is so rife in our day should 
need only to read the prophecies with ordinary attention 
to be convinced that the Messias was to be a person. And 
we shall add that any Hebrew who has the courage and 
the open-mindedness to step out of the groove of traditional 
belief in which his education and environment have placed 
him, and who gives a moderate amount of reflection to the 
Scriptural evidences for the actual coming of the Messias, 
will, at the very least, be made to feel the dubiousness of 
the traditional Hebrew position. 

We shall now group together the texts from the Old Tes- 
tament on which the Christian dogma is based. Each and 
all of them indicate the personal character of the Messias 
and the Messiasship of Jesus of Nazareth. 



Messias, The 297 

Jacob prophesied on his deathbed: "The scepter shall 
not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh, 
till he come that is to be sent, and he shall be the expecta- 
tion of nations" (Gen. xlix. 10). 

In the eighth verse Jacob had said to Juda: "Juda, thee 
shall thy brethren praise ; thy hands shall be on the necks 
of thy enemies; the sons of thy father shall bow down to 
thee." 

The whole Jewish nation once accepted the rendering of 
the tenth verse as given above. It is that of the Septuagint 
Version, which was accepted and used by the Jews. Jacob 
is here prophesying, as all Jews admitted, the leadership of 
Juda among the tribes of the children of Israel. Its leader- 
ship is a historical fact, and it lasted till the coming of 
Jesus of Nazareth. At that period the leadership of Juda 
together with the whole Jewish commonwealth came to an 
end; and since the dispersion of the Jews all distinction 
of tribes has been obliterated. But this was not to happen 
till the Messias came. Therefore the Messias has long since 
come. 

"And there shall come forth a rod out of the root of 
Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root. The Spirit 
of the Lord shall rest upon Him. ... In that day the root 
of Jesse, who standeth for an ensign of the people, him the 
Gentiles shall beseech" (Isaias xi. 1, 2, 10). 

"Drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the 
clouds rain the just. Let the earth be opened and bud 
forth a saviour" (Isaias xlv. 8). 

"The Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold, a 
virgin shall conceive and bear a son. And His name 
shall be called Emmanuel [i.e., God with us]" (Isaias 
vii. 14). 

* ' For a child is born to us and a son is given to us, and 
the government is upon His shoulders : and His name shall 
be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the 
Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace" (Isaias 
ix. 6). 

Isaias speaks of the Messias as the servant of God (xlii) 
and describes Him as the man of sorrows (liii). The sec- 
ond psalm speaks of the Messias as the "Anointed One." 
The one-hundred-and-ninth describes Him as the Son of 
God and the King of the world. The appellations "servant 
of God ' ' and ' ' God the Mighty ' ' are reconciled in the mys- 



298 Messias, The 

tery of the Incarnation, in which Christ is both God and 
Man. (See ''Christ's Divinity.") 

The Jews at the time of Christ were expecting the Mes- 
sias — a definite person, undoubtedly. The prophet Daniel 
predicted (ix. 25-27) that from the time of the rebuilding 
of the walls of Jerusalem, or from the year 453 before 
Christ, to the public appearance of the Messias 69 weeks 
of years, and to the death of the Messias 691/2 weeks of 
years, would elapse. By a "week" of years is meant a 
period of seven years. If 69 be multiplied by 7 we have a 
period of 483 (or 453 + 30) years. Therefore in the thir- 
tieth year of the Christian epoch the Messias should have 
shown Himself publicly, and "in the half of the week" 
following, i.e., three and a half years later, by reason of the 
sacrifice in which He Himself would be the victim, ' ' the vic- 
tim and the sacrifice" of the Old Law should "fail," or 
cease to be acceptable to God. The dates prophesied were 
precisely those of the public appearance and the death, 
respectively, of Jesus of Nazareth. The Jews, though not 
recognizing Jesus as the Messias, expected the Messias to 
appear at that time — evidently understanding the proph- 
ecy, as regarded the dates, as Christians understand it 
to-day. 

Even supposing a possible flaw in the calculation we have 
just rehearsed, the sixty -nine weeks of years must long sirice 
have elapsed and the Messias must have come. 

The prophet Aggeus (ii. 8, 10) predicted that the Messias 
would enter the Temple. In the year 70 after Christ the 
Temple was destroyed by Titus. The Messias is mentioned 
as being the Son of God (Ps. ii. 7). He shall be God and 
Man (Is. ix. 6), — a great wonder-worker (Is. xxxv. 5), — 
a priest according to the order of Melchisedech (Ps. cix. 4), 
— sovereign of the world (Jer. xxiii. 5; Dan. ii. 44). The 
Messias is to make His entrance into Jerusalem seated on 
an ass (Zach. ix. 9). He is to be sold by the friend of His 
table (Ps. xl. 10) for thirty pieces of silver (Zach. xi. 12). 
He is to be mocked and scourged (Ps. xxi. 7; Ixxii. 14). 
His hands and His feet are to be pierced (Ps. xxi. 17). 
In His sufferings He will be as meek and patient as a lamb 
(Is. liii. 7). 

All these prophecies were accepted by the Jews as point- 
ing to the Messias. Jesus of Nazareth came at the very 
time when the Jews were expecting the Messias, and the 



Mind and Matter 299 

striking resemblance between Him and the one described in 
the prophecies can not escape the most incredulous of He- 
brews in our day. If the Messias has not appeared the 
prophecy of Daniel can never be verified. If He has ap- 
peared He must surely have appeared in the person of 
Jesus of Nazareth. If Jesus is the Messias the religion of 
Jesus is the only one acceptable to God. 



MIND AND MATTER 

Erroneous View. — Mind is only a phosphores- 
cence of the brain. Hence mind — to call it by 
that name — is but a state or condition of matter. 
Spiritual mind or soul vanishes under the light 
of analysis and experiment. 

The Truth. — Such is the pronouncement of the ma- 
terialist; but it is not the teaching of sound philosophy, 
which tells me that man possesses, besides a body and 
bodily senses, a spiritual mind, and that it is mind that 
renders him superior to the rest of visible creation and 
enables him to subdue all things to his power. 

The root of this power lies in the mind's capability of 
attaining to knowledge, as distinguished from mere sense 
impressions; and the beginning of knowledge is abstract 
thought. By abstract thinking we mean the withdrawing 
of the mind from the particular object we happen to be 
contemplating and fixing it on the kind or species to which 
the thing belongs. Instead of thinking, for instance, of this 
or that particular horse I think of the kind, or class, or 
species known as the horse — the horse in general. It is by 
the mind's power of abstracting that it is enabled to free 
itself from the conditions of matter and soar above the 
domain of sense. Science is man's greatest achievement, 
and science is abstract thought. 

The proof that mind is an immaterial or spiritual 
faculty lies in its immaterial or spiritual functions : // the 
acts of the mind are spiritual the mind itself must he 
spiritual. 

Take any abstract idea; analyze it, and at once the su- 
perior power of mind will be manifest. One class of ab- 
stract conceptions is that of relations. Let us take one 
of these relations — ownership. The idea of ownership can 



300 Mind and Matter 

not be conceived by any faculty that is not spiritual. An 
illustration : I see before me a piece of money, a gold coin 
belonging to a friend of mine. There is nothing in the 
coin itself declaring who is its owner ; and yet if / should 
appropriate the coin and spend it for my uses I should be 
guilty of an act of injustice. If my friend should take it 
and make a good use of it he should be acting within his 
rights. And yet no one can discover by sight or by touch 
that the coin bears a relation to my friend which it does 
not bear to me — the relation of a thing owned to its owner. 
Ownership is not a material thing; it is immaterial, and 
therefore can not be apprehended by any but an imma- 
terial faculty ; or, in other words, by mind. The same may 
be said of all other abstract conceptions, such as truth, jus- 
tice, virtue, vice, and the like, and of abstract conceptions 
of energy, gravitation, quantity, dimension, and other ma- 
terial qualities. 

These ideas are realities, for they are the very subject- 
matter of science, which deals only with realities. Regard 
them as fictions, and science becomes a bundle of unreali- 
ties. 

There is need of little reflection to see that science has to 
do with abstract and general truths. A physicist writing 
on the conservation of energy is not concerned with any 
particular instance of energy, unless incidentally, but with 
energy in general. The moralist in treating of justice is 
thinking of justice in the abstract, and not of justice as 
exercised in this or that particular case. Thus the whole 
of science is made up of abstractions. Its definitions, its 
axioms, its laws, its principles, are all abstractions. Now 
all these abstractions are realities ; otherwise they could not 
be the subject-matter of science. But they are not realities 
of the material order ; they rise above matter and material 
conditions into the domain of the immaterial and spiritual. 
Therefore the mind that conceives them must he of the same 
order. 

But is it not the brain that thinks? Do we not call a 
good thinker a man of brains ? And is not the brain matter 
Qiat can be weighed and measured? 

No, it is not the brain that thinks. Nevertheless the brain 
has something to do with thinking. It acts the part of a 
servant to the mind. It supplies what may be called the 
raw material of thought — the images or phantasms from 



Mind and Matter 301 

which the mind abstracts its general or universal notions. 
The action of the brain is needed, but in some such way 
as the stoker is needed in the running of an engine. The 
brain supplies the material and the mind transforms it. 

And yet there are those who think otherwise and assert 
that the brain has all to do with thinking, and that think- 
ing is a purely material operation. This capital error is 
due to the fact that those who have fallen into it confine 
their attention to the mere physiological accompaniments 
of mental operations. They see the working of the intri- 
cate machinery which nature has supplied in the nervous 
system and the brain and jump to the conclusion that this 
is the sum and substance of thought and emotion. Every 
mental act is accompanied by a movement in the nervous 
system and the brain. Man being composed of body and 
soul, there is a blending of the functions of the body with 
those of the soul in all his acts. Neither soul nor body 
acts alone. Each has its own distinct processes, but the 
two factors work harmoniously together. 

Let me suppose I am sitting at a window overlooking 
a fine landscape. I note, one after another, the beautiful 
features of the scene and am filled with admiration. Fi- 
nally, I resolve to go out into the open air, to explore some 
part of the landscape to which I have been specially at- 
tracted. Afterward, on reviewing all that has occurred, I 
notice a series of mental or intellectual operations — reflec- 
tion, admiration, volition (the willing of something). But 
accompanying these, though silent and unobserved, are a 
number of operations belonging to the material part of my 
nature. First, the eye receives its impressions of the scene 
and transmits them, by means of a set of nerves, to the 
brain. Finally, the brain, by means of another set of 
nerves, sends a return message to the external muscles, and 
the body is soon in motion. 

Now there is not one of these last-mentioned operations 
which bears any resemblance to thought or to any intellec- 
tual phenomenon whatever. The vibration of a nerve is 
neither thought nor feeling. No readjustment of the mole- 
cules of the brain would ever be described by any sensible 
man as an act of willing. And yet these physical opera- 
tions are needed as a basis for mental operations. The 
mind is thus dependent extrinsically on the senses and the 
nervous system, whilst its own intrinsic operation is of a 



302 Mind and Matter 

totally different nature and belongs to the order of things 
spiritual. 

It is obvious that if A always accompanies B the fact 
may be significant, but we can not conclude that the two 
are identical; yet this is the mistake into which the ma- 
terialist falls; mind is matter because the two invariably 
go hand in hand. The head and front of his offense against 
sound science is that he confines his attention to the ma- 
terial side of intellectual operations and then concludes 
that there is no other side. He thus reduces all the power 
of mind and will that has shaped the destinies of the human 
race to the action of a bundle of quivering nerves. 

The study of these two sets of phenomena in their mu- 
tual relations is the object of a science which may be said 
to have sprung into existence in our own day — Physiologi- 
cal Psychology, otherwise known as Experimental Psy- 
chology or as Psycho-Physics. Its first task is to observe 
and coordinate all the outward manifestations of mind. It 
measures, or attempts to measure, the duration and inten- 
sity of mental acts and states — thinking, desiring, resolv- 
ing, and the like. Delicately constructed instruments re- 
cord, for instance, the time elapsing between the first stimu- 
lus given the outward sense and the voluntary motion of 
the muscles resulting from it. The psycho-physicist has 
his apparatus and his laboratory and has devised an intri- 
cate system of experiments on living subjects. The ulti- 
mate aim of Experimental Psychology is to obtain a knowl- 
edge of mind itself. This final purpose it can not safely 
discard ; for psychology, to be worthy of its name, should 
tell us something of the nature of soul, or at least of such 
manifestations of soul as mind. 

What has Physiological Psychology accomplished? We 
mean, of course, principally as regards the nature of men- 
tal acts and of mind itself. Directly and by the use of 
its peculiar methods, it has accomplished absolutely noth- 
ing. It has, it is true, brought to light a number of curi- 
ous facts connected with mental phenomena, but these are 
not part and parcel of the mental acts themselves, i.e., of 
thought, emotion, volition. The most distinguished repre- 
sentatives of the science have had to acknowledge that there 
is a something that lies beyond the reach of their experi- 
ments and which is totally different from what is observed. 
The most distinguished of them all, Professor Wundt, tells 



Mind and Matter 303 

us that if the brain were ransacked to the utmost and all 
its processes exposed to view, it would still be brain and 
nothing more. '*As to the psychical import of these proc- 
esses we should learn nothing." If this view be correct 
the psycho-physicist is doing business under false pre- 
tenses. His business is physiology, not psychology. 

However, the mere work of observing and endeavoring to 
synthesize the sensible phenomena connected with thought 
is a perfectly legitimate pursuit. It may be hoped, too, 
that for the well-intentioned student one good result may 
be produced which has already been produced in the case 
of more than one psycho-physicist, viz., that experiment 
and reflection will have added fresh emphasis to the fact 
that what is observable by means of physical apparatus 
and visible experiment is utterly different from and in- 
ferior to what are properly called mental or psychic phe- 
nomena, and that the difference is precisely that which 
subsists between the material and the spiritual. 

Perhaps, too, as regards the mind itself as distinguished 
from its acts, some will be brought to the conviction of a 
very distinguished psycho-physicist. Professor Ladd, viz., 
that mind is not only a reality distinct from its material 
habitat, but a spiritual reality as well. ''The only way," 
says Professor Ladd, ''of maintaining the materiality of 
mind would then appear to be that of denying its real 
existence at all, and of attributing its phenomena to the 
material molecules of the brain as their real and material 
substratum or basis. But the untenable nature of this 
view has already been sufficiently indicated. . . . The nega- 
tive conclusion that mind is non-material is quite inevitable 
for every one who admits that mind is a real being with 
any nature whatever. ... It is not difficult, also, to show 
that we must make the corresponding positive statement 
and affirm the spirituality of mind." — "Elements of 
Physiol. Psychol.," p. 682. 

The materialist has frequently exploited the work of the 
psycho-physicist for his own purposes, but evidently in do- 
ing so he parts company with the distinguished masters of 
the science. (See "Materialism" and "Soul.") 



304 Miracles 

MIRACLES 

Objections. — i. The universal experience of 
mankind, as Hume reminds us, is a proof of the 
impossibility of miracles. 2. Reported miracles 
can not be proved to be real ones. 3. If miracles 
are possible science has no meaning, as science 
has established the constancy and uniformity of 
natural laws, and miracles are violations of nat- 
ural laws. 

The Answer. — Experience has to do with the past; it 
can tell me nothing with absolute certainty about the fu- 
ture. It can tell me what has taken place, but it does not 
assure me that the opposite can not take place. Universal 
experience tells me that water quenches fire, but it can teU 
me nothing as to whether on some particular occasion water 
will not fail to quench fire. Experience is the besetting idea 
of the whole school of philosophy of which Hume may be 
regarded as the progenitor; but here the idea is run into 
the ground. In the course of the present article we shall 
see how a special experience may report a class of facts 
beyond the range of ordinary experience 

A miracle is an effect that can not have been produced by 
any natural agency and must he attributed to the direct 
power of God. It is produced in nature but not by nature. 
The definition as thus understood excludes the act of cre- 
ation, as creation does not work in nature, but gives nature 
its origin. In a less strict sense of the word the power 
exercised by an angel over matter may be called miracu- 
lous. The moral effect produced by either kind of miracle 
may be the same, as in either case intervention from on 
high is manifest. A miraculous event is always of a kind 
to excite wonder ; hence its name, which is from the Latin 
miraculum, ''a wonderful occurrence.'* The wonder is 
aroused by the striking contrast between what is witnessed 
and what happens in the ordinary course of nature. 

In reference to natural laws miracles may be divided 
into three classes. Some are above natural laws, as when 
a dead man is restored to life. Others are contrary to nat- 
ural laws, as when a stone remains suspended in the air 
without any support. Others, again, are simply apart 
from, or independent of, natural laws, as when a fractured 
limb that might be healed by a physician is healed by the 



Miracles 305 

touch of a saintly man. In all these classes of miracles 
either the substance of what occurs or the manner in which 
it occurs makes it impossible to attribute it to any natural 
agency. 

Miracles Are Possible. — Granted the existence of an om- 
nipotent God who is the author and preserver of all finite 
things, it is inconceivable that He should not be sovereign 
master and controller of that which is the work of His 
hands. If a human inventor can modify or interfere with 
the working of a piece of mechanism which is the product 
of his own brain, much more easily can God interfere with 
the mechanism of the universe. This simple demonstration 
must be convincing to any one who believes in an all- 
powerful God ; and, as to the atheist, he must at least admit 
that if there is a God He can interfere in His own creation. 

But it may be objected to this reasoning that although, 
absolutely speaking, God can interfere with the action of 
natural laws, nevertheless it would be inconsistent with 
His infinite wisdom to do so. Nature's laws are of God's 
own making and are sufficient for the purposes of His 
creation. Why, then, should He interfere with their work- 
ing? 

Our answer to the objection is that nature's laws are 
sufficient for the ordinary purposes of creation, but that 
higher purposes may be served by miracles. By means 
of miracles God impresses upon us the truth that nature's 
laws proceed from Him and are subject to Him. By mira- 
cles He can put the seal of His approbation on the words 
and deeds of those whom He has commissioned to preach 
His revelation. By miracles He can show forth the merits 
of chosen souls whom He has set up as beacon-lights in the 
Church. By miracles He can give a striking proof that 
He still abides with His Church and is exercising a con- 
tinual providence over it. We are more impressed by what 
is unusual and exceptional than by what is ordinary and 
commonplace; and hence it is by extraordinary supernat- 
ural events that God accomplishes the higher and more spe- 
cial purposes of His providence. 

The stock objection against miracles in our age is made 
in the name of physical science. But we must distinguish 
between science and scientists. Certain scientists have used 
science as a weapon in attempting to overthrow a belief in 
miracles, but they have never advanced beyond their first 



306 Miracles 

line of attack. They argue against miracles chiefly by 
repeating, almost by rote, one and the same hackneyed 
formula. They tell us that nature's laws are constant and 
uniform in their operation; that water quenches fire and 
stones fall to the ground by virtue of fixed and unchange- 
able laws; and that miracles are a contradiction of this 
principle. But an answer has long since been given to 
the objection, to wit, that the laws in question are uniform 
and constant in their action so far as the purely natural 
order is concerned, but that we have no warrant for con- 
cluding that the natural order may not be subject to in- 
terference from a higher order. 

To this the feeble rejoinder is made that if exceptions 
to natural laws be once admitted science can never be sure 
of its conclusions. Certainly, we answer, it can never be 
sure of its conclusions if there is no means of distinguishing 
exceptions from the rule ; but a miracle, of its very nature, 
points to and emphasizes an exception, as such, to natural 
laws. Its very name, in fact, arises from the astonishment 
felt at a departure from natural law. Here, preeminently, 
the exception proves the rule. The rule remains intact and 
science is saved. The scientists with whom we are dealing 
may not believe in a supernatural order. In that case, let 
them spend their endeavors on disproving its existence ; in 
which task, however, they can derive no possible aid from 
physical science. But that is the crucial question ; for, once 
a supernatural order is admitted, the possibility of its 
interfering with the natural order must be evident. 

Science, after all, has added nothing to ordinary knowl- 
edge that tends to make a miracle more astonishing or, at 
first sight, less credible. From the days of Adam it has 
been known that a stone released from the hands falls 
to the ground. If by a miracle the stone should be sus- 
pended in the air, the fact is not more astonishing to-day 
because science has given a name to the law by which the 
stone falls, or has discovered more about the extent of its 
empire, or has defined the mode of its behavior. And even 
where science has discovered a law hitherto unknown, ex- 
ceptions to the law are no more astonishing than if the 
law had been known from the beginning of time. Why, 
then, invoke with so much solemnity the name of science 
against a belief in miracles, as though science had im- 
ported a new element into the controversy. 



Miracles 307 

Miracles Can Be Known and Recognized as Miracles. — 
In the first place, they can be known and recognized simply 
as extraordinary events, whether their true cause be known 
or not. As they commonly appeal to the senses, it is only 
necessary that the senses be in a healthy condition. As 
a matter of fact, in the history of Christianity, many such 
events have been observed by numerous witnesses, by sober- 
minded, unimaginative, nay, skeptical observers, and their 
wonderful character has been acknowledged. It is a pro- 
found mistake in our opponents to assume that all reports 
of miracles are old wives' tales. 

In the city of Naples there has occurred many times a 
year for centuries a miracle that has baffled every attempt 
to explain it by natural causation. We refer to the lique- 
faction of the blood of St. Januarius. It has occurred in 
the sight of immense throngs and has been witnessed and 
even investigated by distinguished scientists. Naples is in 
the track of modern travel, and hard-headed Northerners, 
as well as enthusiastic Southerners, have been drawn to 
the scene of the miracle by curiosity. If not all who have 
come to scoff have remained to pray, certainly a profound 
impression has been made upon the more thoughtful. 

Lourdes, in France, another splendid theater of the 
miraculous, has furnished hundreds of cases of cures that 
have arrested the attention of men of science. These won- 
ders have been acknowledged as facts for which no ex- 
planation could be found in nature. The sifting and re- 
cording of evidence of miracles at the Grotto of Lourdes 
is not left to haphazard, but is organized in the hands of 
a permanent body of experts, whose work is open to the 
inspection of all comers. Sudden and complete cures of 
diseases pronounced incurable by the medical profession 
are recorded by the hundred. We shall have more to say 
about the Lourdes miracles presently. 

In the second place, miracles may be known and recog- 
-nized precisely as miracles, and not merely as wonderful 
events brought about by some unknown cause. To be able 
to pronounce an event miraculous I must be sure that no 
natural cause has produced it and that it has been caused 
supernaturally. It does not follow, however, that I must 
be acquainted with every law of nature. It is sufficient to 
know that one law has been contravened and that, at 
least, the circumstances connected with the event exclude 



308 Miracles 

the action of all other natural laws. This is the kind of 
process gone through by official appraisers of miracles in 
the Catholic Church. 

But, it will be objected, how is it possible by a consid- 
eration of any circumstances to eliminate all the unknown 
laws of nature ? Our knowledge of nature is limited ; and 
when we see a thing happen that is contrary to all the 
known laws of nature, is it not reasonable to suppose that 
if we knew more we should have no difficulty in explain- 
ing the event by purely natural causation? 

Let us endeavor to do full justice to this objection, which 
is urged by some scientists of our day. The scientific habit 
of mind necessarily prompts one to seek a natural cause 
for any interference with a known law of nature; and it 
is intelligible that a non-believing scientist, though dumb- 
founded at the sight of a miracle, should not easily sur- 
render to evidence in favor of the supernatural. But in 
our generation there are many scientists who need to 
broaden their horizon. It is desirable, in particular, that 
all men of science should be acquainted with the processes 
followed by those whose business it is to determine the 
genuineness of alleged miracles. These processes would be 
found to be as strictly logical as any that physical science 
can boast of. 

Within the pale of physical science, when an inquiry is 
set on foot to determine the cause of a given mysterious 
phenomenon, the process of elimination is one of the first 
steps taken; the next is the seeking of positive evidence 
in favor of one cause in particular, of whose action and 
presence there are prima facie indications. A brilliant 
example was witnessed in the series of experiments made 
by Pasteur to test the conclusions of another distinguished 
scientist in favor of spontaneous generation. The one al- 
leged cause was eliminated and the true cause positively 
demonstrated. Such experiments bespeak the true man of 
science ; and we mention them because an analogous method 
of inquiry, and one no less thorough, is employed by the 
authorities of the Catholic Church in investigating the 
genuineness of miracles. (See page 463.) 

The first stage of the process results in the establish- 
ment of the fact that the cure, if it be a case of that kind, 
can not be accounted for by any known natural agency; 
and this conclusion is based on the testimony of medical 



Miracles 309 

experts. The next step is to determine whether the cir- 
cumstances of the case are of a kind to warrant the elim- 
ination of all natural causation from the inquiry and the 
attributing of the effect to a supernatural cause. 

At the famous Grotto of Lourdes the systematic inves- 
tigation of cases of miraculous healing is a typical illus- 
tration of the first part of the process. If our scientific 
skeptics would take the trouble to acquaint themselves with 
the work of the Medical Office, or Bureau des Constaiations, 
a permanent body of experts at Lourdes, the whole sub- 
ject of miracles would be seen under a new aspect. The 
function of the Bureau is to examine into the circumstances 
of the cures in their purely medical bearings. Both its 
work and the records kept of it are open to inspection; 
and physicians in great numbers, many of them leaders in 
their profession and members of distinguished medical 
bodies, have availed themselves of the opportunity to ob- 
serve phenomena which had been making so great a stir 
in the world. 

In a period of fourteen years, from 1890 to 1904, as 
many as 2712 medical men visited the Bureau, and many 
of them were present at the moment when those who had 
been cured instantaneously at the Grotto had hastened to 
present themselves for examination at the Medical Office. 
As a matter of course, many of the doctors present on 
those occasions ignored the supernatural, but we are not 
concerned just here with their interpretation of the facts. 
It is enough for our purpose to know that the facts were 
recognized as facts — especially the fact of the naturally in- 
curable nature of the diseases and the fact of their perfect 
cure. 

An examination of the register of the Medical Office for 
which we are indebted to Georges Bertrin, ** Lourdes: A 
History of its Apparitions and Cures, ' ' brings into promi- 
nence a number of distinctive features of the medical record 
which tell a wonderful tale of the mercies vouchsafed at 
the Grotto or otherwise connected with the devotion to our 
Lady of Lourdes. They are principally the following: 

1. The Immense Number of Records of Complete Cures. 
— About five years ago (1910), the number had reached 
3,962 — though the actual number of cures was probably 
over seven thousand; for many wonderful cases had oc- 
curred before the Medical Office was established, and many 



310 Miracles 

cases had not been reported ; but, what is more notable still, 
many cures have been purposely excluded from the rec- 
ords, for reasons which we shall consider later. 

2. The Remarkable Variety of the Diseases Healed. — Dis- 
eases nearly always at an advanced stage of development, 
and in numerous cases pronounced incurable. The list 
given by Bertrin must very nearly exhaust the category 
of human ailments. Diseases organic as well as functional, 
lesions and fractures, tumors and cancers, deafness and 
blindness, are examples of distempers that have disappeared 
in the twinkling of an eye. Medical skill has done wonders, 
but never in the history of medicine has any drug or any 
form of treatment cured indifferently all manner of dis- 
eases. 

3. The Exclusiveness of the Records. — Not all genuine 
cures are registered. What the doctors in charge want most 
of all are cases which medicine is unable to heal ; what they 
wish most to exclude are cases which the critical or the 
prejudiced might attribute to some known natural agency — 
especially that which is known as suggestion. Hence the 
small space occupied in the register by nervous diseases. 
And yet many such cases might well have been registered ; 
for, if medical authorities rightly inform us, few serious 
nervous disorders are radically or permanently cured by 
medical treatment, even by the special devices of psycho- 
therapy; and many such cures, though actually wrought 
at Lourdes, are excluded from the register. On the other 
hand, many that are recorded are among those which adepts 
in psychotherapy have declared to be beyond the reach 
of their art — among others, neurasthenia. (Cf. Bertrin 's 
citations from Bernheim, the head of the famous Nancy 
school of hypnotizers, from Hoffmann of Diisseldorf, and 
from Brouardel. ) On the Lourdes records we find as many 
as seventy -eight cases of neurasthenia cured. 

The records thus dispose of the objection so carelessly 
and unscrupulously made, that the ''so-called" cures of 
Lourdes are those of neurotics. But the objection has never 
been mooted by genuine medical authorities who have 
visited the Medical Office and have found themselves in the 
presence of actual cases. 

The general reader should understand that the anxiety 
of the Lourdes doctors to exclude nervous cases from their 
registers is due to the reputation, mostly undeserved, of 



Miracles 311 

hypnotizers and faith-healers, in regard to the cure of 
nervous disorders. Now these practitioners employ what is 
technically called "suggestion," and it has been persist- 
ently asserted that suggestion is the healing agency at 
Lourdes, and that consequently the cures can not be at- 
tributed to divine intervention. Suggestion might be de- 
scribed as a species of personal influence which exercises 
a sort of spell over the thoughts and feelings. No reason- 
ing is employed, but reliance is- placed upon the use of 
strong words of assurance or of command, or upon gesture, 
manner, or attitude. It is called auto-suggestion (self-sug- 
gestion) when one, even though unconsciously, produces by 
the same general means a certain state of mind in himself. 
An ardent desire or a much cherished idea is an example of 
the kind of agency that works in auto-suggestion. Sugges- 
tion, so far as it is successful, acts upon the nerves and has 
often been used even by non-specialists for the cure of 
nervous diseases. 

It has been asserted, as we have said, that suggestion is 
the force that operates at Lourdes, and that the form it 
assumes there is that of an intense faith, often made more 
intense by the devotional enthusiasm of great crowds. It 
has been maintained that not only nervous ailments, but all 
the multitudinous forms of disease completely, permanent- 
ly, and oftentimes instantaneously, healed at the Grotto 
have been cured by faith, and by faith acting directly as a 
physical agent ; which amounts to telling us that faith, act- 
ing like some all-powerful drug, searches fractured bones 
and knits them together in an instant ; searches a diseased 
tissue and heals up a gaping sore under the eyes of the 
spectators. It sounds like a Miinchausen, but it is a common 
refuge for many who flee from the supernatural. 

Well-instructed Catholics will understand that we, too, 
attribute these miraculous cures ultimately to faith; for 
without faith devotion to our Lady of Lourdes would be an 
impossibility. But it need not, absolutely, be possessed by 
the person in whose favor the miracle is wrought. The 
miracle may be intended for his conversion, as was the case 
with Naaman the Syrian, who was healed by the prophet 
Eliseus (4 Kings v.). Even when faith is possessed by the 
patient it only disposes him to be the recipient of special 
divine favor. It acts as a moral force, not as a physical 
agent. 



312 Miracles 

Those who presume to explain these extraordinary cures 
by the physical action of faith (and faith they consider a 
purely natural feeling with no admixture of the supernat- 
ural) sometimes proceed on the false assumption that what 
is done at Lourdes has been done by medicine, at least by 
psychotherapy, and that therefore there is no need of at- 
tributing the cures to the supernatural. Now, in the first 
place, even if such cures could be effected by medicine, it 
would not follow that the actual cures at the Grotto are not 
supernatural. If medicine can cure, God also can cure; 
and there may be signs, as indeed there are in abundance, 
that at Lourdes God has chosen to exhibit His power. 

But the assumption is based on ignorance of the fact 
that the most experienced adepts in psychotherapy (Bern- 
heim and others, mentioned above) confess their helpless- 
ness in the presence of organic diseases, and admit only 
partial success in the cure of nervous disorders. So that 
there is nothing in medicine to prove that the cures at the 
Grotto are possibly by natural agency. Others confess that 
Lourdes has beaten the doctors and that medicine can Hot 
hope to match the prodigies exhibited at the Grotto. But 
why? Because medicine does not possess the most potent 
form of suggestion. Faith (working, of course, as a physi- 
cal cause) is the supreme form of suggestion, and its power 
may be unlimited. States of mind are known to influence 
the body in strange ways, and why may not faith wrought 
to the highest pitch of intensity produce such wonders as 
are witnessed at Lourdes? 

To make it clear that the miracles of Lourdes are not 
a matter of suggestion or of mind-cure, we would observe, 
in the first place, that it is only by a misconception of 
things that the faith of a Catholic is put in the same cate- 
gory as the state of mind produced by a hypnotizer or by 
any professional healer. The latter is a state of surrender 
to the influence of the practitioner. It is a virtual resign- 
ing of the state of mind and feeling the removal of which 
is a condition for the restoration of health; and thus the 
cure, so far as it is successful at all, may be said to be in 
actual progress when the surrender is being made, and the 
patient, in a great measure, heals himself. With Catholic 
faith it is different. The faith that brings a sufferer to 
Lourdes is a belief simply in God's power to heal him. He 
can have no assurance of a cure — indeed, he sees many 



Miracles 313 

about him who have failed to receive health at the Grotto 
— and he can contribute nothing to his own healing. It is 
commonly noted that those who seek the aid of Our Lady 
of Lourdes show nearly as much resignation as hope. One 
of the usual expressions on the lips of the sick is, *'May 
God's will be done," or "If it is God's good pleasure, I 
shall be healed." This is not the mental exaltation of 
faith. Many whose faith has been of the deepest and purest 
and whose hope has risen almost to certainty have retired 
from the world-famed Grotto uncured — because God so 
willed it. In the second place, there have been cases at 
Lourdes in which the persons cured have been without 
either faith or religious feeling. A remarkable one is 
that of Gabriel Gargam, who, long after his miraculous 
cure, was a well-known attendant at the piscinas of 
Lourdes. He had no faith in miracles, and yet he was 
cured in an instant. Finally, there are cases registered of 
the cure of infants. The fact needs no comment. 

4. The Immense Number of Permanent Cures Recorded. 
— Hundreds of cures known to be permanent were neces- 
sarily left unrecorded, but the record does not suffer very 
much by their omission. What a splendid record it is of 
health and happiness for many a one-time sufferer ! The 
immense number of these particular records is due partly 
to the assiduity of the members of the Bureau, who have 
made it a point to follow up many cases after their cure, 
and partly to the fact that a large percentage of the cured 
have returned to render thanksgiving for their recovery 
and to witness to their complete and lasting health. 

5. The Record of Instantaneous Cures. — The most re- 
markable feature of the Lourdes register is the instantane- 
ous character of a large percentage of the cures. It has 
been no uncommon experience at the Medical Office to see 
men or women in the last stages of the most virulent dis- 
eases go to the Grotto and return in a short while in a state 
of perfect health. To touch the waters or to behold the 
Blessed Sacrament borne in procession has been enough; 
in an instant perfect health has revisited frames that were 
fit for little more than to be cast into the grave. This has 
happened in the case of the most deeply seated organic 
diseases — in cases of total blindness and of total deafness, 
and of other no less incurable maladies. 

These events have happened in the open, and have often 



314 Miracles 

been witnessed by hundreds or thousands of spectators. 
A most notable instance was that of Gabriel Gargam, men- 
tioned above. Brought to death's door in consequence of 
internal injuries received in a railroad accident, and, in- 
deed, thought to be dying as he lay upon a stretcher dur- 
ing the procession of the Blessed Sacrament, he suddenly 
rose to his feet after having been pinned to his bed for 
twenty months. He was cured. Every symptom of a 
frightful complication of diseases had disappeared in an 
instant. 

The circumstance we have been noticing is by far the 
most important of all ; for, whatever success medicine, gen- 
eral or special, has had in curing diseases, however re- 
markable the feats performed by surgery in our day, in- 
stantaneous cures are, of course, unheard of. The physi- 
cian or surgeon does his part of the work and leaves the 
rest to nature; but nature requires a measurable time for 
the performance of its own task. At Lourdes there is fre- 
quently not a second's duration between a shattered frame 
and perfect health. In a larger number of cases the cure 
is not instantaneous, but its rapid progress is nothing short 
of marvelous — and all the more marvelous as medical 
science had pronounced the disease incurable. 

And now to sum up the evidence supplied by the records 
of the Medical Office at the Grotto; we find an immense 
number of diseases in the most advanced stages of develop- 
ment cured completely, permanently, in many cases in- 
stantaneously — diseases for which medicine, including psy- 
chotherapy, has no resources^ — diseases the cure of which 
no scientific authority can attribute to any known natural 
agency. The facts have been too numerous and too public 
to admit of any denial. Indeed, they are so patent that 
many of those who shrink from admitting supernatural 
intervention are driven to the hypothesis that the cures 
are attributable to some unknown forces of nature. This 
hypothesis we shall examine later on. 

But what about the water of the Grotto? May it not 
possess some natural qualities, wonderful in their effects, 
it is true, but still within the domain of nature? The 
question has been answered long before to-day. The water 
of the Grotto has been analyzed by the most competent 
experts and found to be without any medicinal qualities. 
There are those who regard water of any kind as all but 



Miracles 315 

a panacea, but, if I mistake not, even they would draw 
the line at the cure of blindness and the sudden mending 
of broken bones by the application of water. In no case 
would the application even of medicinal waters effect an 
instantaneous cure, and yet patients have been cured at the 
Grotto with the suddenness of an electric flash. Besides, 
many have been cured without making any use of the 
waters, sometimes after praying, at other times when they 
found themselves in the near presence of the Sacred Host 
during the processions of the Blessed Sacrament. 

And now a word or two on the hypothesis that some un- 
known law of nature is at the bottom of the Lourdes mira- 
cles. An unknown law of nature — let us endeavor to un- 
derstand what the hypothesis implies. Let us consider it 
in its bearings on a specific class of cures, that of consump- 
tion. By virtue of one law of nature, the lungs under cer- 
tain conditions decay ; that is to say, the tissue of the lungs 
has been destroyed; corruption has invaded the material 
forming the cellular tissue which is the basis of all life. 
To restore life to the lungs new cells must be produced ; but 
to produce them naturally would require a sort of natural 
miracle — indeed, more than a miracle, a real creation, a 
production out of nothing. Are scientists prepared to ad- 
mit the idea of a real creative force in nature ? a force that 
can produce something out of nothing? or even a force 
that can produce life in death? 

Again, are they willing to admit that all their science 
may be thrown into confusion by the suspicion that secret 
agencies may be at work, making against the harmony and 
constancy of natural activities? Why, this is the very re- 
sult which skeptical scientists contend would be produced 
by the miraculous : we could never be certain, they tell us, 
of the constancy of any natural law. And this certainly 
would be the result if miracles did not bring with them 
sufficient evidence of their being only a rare and momen- 
tary interference from out a higher sphere of activities — 
after which nature and the science of nature are allowed 
to proceed on their course ; in other words, if miracles were 
not plainly the exception that proved the rule; whereas 
if in nature itself sl number — and indeed an indefinite num- 
ber — of perhaps all-powerful secret agencies be admitted — 
science is simply at their mercy. It has been well remarked 
that all new scientific knowledge — a knowledge, for in- 



316 Miracles 

stance, of some hitherto unknown law — is supplementary, 
not destructive, of old knowledge, and that every new law 
discovered harmonizes with laws previously known. Such 
is nature as men have always known it. 

But there may be those who are not so sensitive to the 
fate of science, but who cling tenaciously to the hypothesis 
of hidden laws because otherwise they would be quite at 
sea in attempting to account for facts which can not be 
gainsaid. Well, granting, for the argument's sake, the ex- 
istence of such hidden laws, how does it happen that 
Lourdes enjoys such a monopoly of their effects and of 
their benefits? Is Lourdes one of their favorite habitats? 
And if they are real laws and are supposed to act like laws, 
why do they show so much caprice by refusing their favors 
to some and dispensing them to others, although the con- 
ditions are the same in all cases? Or if it is faith that 
gives a stimulus to their activities, why are not their bless- 
ings dispensed in proportion to the intensity of the faith, 
which they certainly are not? Indeed, there seems to be 
no law whatever in the matter, so varied are the circum- 
stances under which cures are, or are not, effected. If 
there is one hidden law concerned there is at least a score 
of them, and they very accommodatingly permit one an- 
other to act by turns. 

But the discussion is in danger of becoming too ridicu- 
lous for the gravity of the average reader. We must turn 
to the second stage of the process used in verifying re- 
ported miracles. Lourdes illustrates the first stage. There, 
as we have seen, a systematic professional study of reputed 
miracles has for many years been organized. The most lib- 
eral provision has been made for just that sort of profes- 
sional scrutiny of the miraculous which certain scientists 
have been so loudly demanding; and we may remark in 
passing that, now that they can satisfy their scientific crav- 
ings to their hearts' content, we hope they will not fail to 
respond to the invitation first given by Philip to the in- 
credulous Nathanael, ''Come and see." 

The value of the testimony furnished by the Medical 
Of&ce can not be overestimated. It proves beyond a doubt 
that the cures can not be accounted for by the operation 
of any known natural laws; and thus the first part of the 
process we have been studying is aptly illustrated in ac- 
tual practice. 



Miracles 317 

The second part of the process is to seek for evidence of 
supernatural intervention. The process as a whole is as 
logical (nay, more so) and as rigidly scientific as any that 
can be shown in the sphere of the natural sciences. Facts 
are demanded, and the significance of the facts is carefully 
weighed. The Roman tribunals are almost proverbial for 
the care with which they sift the evidence for miracles 
when there is question of the canonization of a saint. 
Father Perrone, the distinguished theologian, tells us that 
once having shown the process for certain miracles to an 
eminent Protestant lawyer, the latter expressed himself as 
entirely satisfied and thought such evidence would not be 
rejected by an English jury, but was astonished when told 
that the evidence was not considered sufficient by the Con- 
gregation of Rites. A similar incident is reported by Alban 
Butler on the authority of Daubenton. The local com- 
mission appointed to inquire into the genuineness of the 
Lourdes miracles and into the events leading up to them 
showed an equal degree of care in its search for the truth. 
It spent four years in its investigations and left no stone 
unturned to come at the real facts. 

The first circumstance to be noted about these extraordi- 
nary cures is that, directly or indirectly, they are insepa- 
rably associated with the Grotto of Lourdes. Whether 
they are wrought at the Grotto itself or a thousand miles 
away — whether they have followed upon the use of the 
water or have occurred after prayer for relief — whether 
they have taken place in the Lourdes basilica or in the 
out-of-door procession of the Blessed Sacrament — the 
Grotto is the moral center from which this salutary in- 
fluence has radiated throughout the world. What is there 
in the place, or what has happe7ied in it, to make it such 
a unique source of blessings? Is not this the first question 
to which the true man of science who admitted the cures 
would require an answer? 

The history of Lourdes under this particular aspect is 
well authenticated. The period is little more than half 
a century, and during that time the eyes of the world have 
been upon Lourdes. Hundreds and thousands of witnesses 
have been available; investigations have been made and 
records kept; and facts so well certified are deserving of 
no less attention than the undoubted facts of natural 
science. 



318 Miracles 

In the month of February, 1858, Bernadette Soubirous, 
a girl of fourteen, but younger than her years, simple, art- 
less, and slow of understanding, was suddenly favored by 
a vision of a heavenly form, showing itself in a niche 
of rock which has since been known the world over as 
the Grotto of Lourdes. The apparition was that of a lady 
of ravishing beauty. The child felt drawn to prayer and 
recited her rosary. The lady also had a pair of beads in 
her hands, which she merely passed through her fingers 
in unison with the child, but without praying, except when 
she came to the ' ' Glory be to the Father, etc., ' ' at the end 
of each decade. The first apparition was followed by seven- 
teen others on successive days. 

The lady made herself known to the child as the Blessed 
Virgin, though she designated herself particularly as "the 
Immaculate Conception." The dogma of the Immaculate 
Conception had been proclaimed a little more than three 
years before, but the child knew nothing of the import 
of the phrase, as her after inquiries proved. She had been 
slow in acquiring a knowledge of her faith and had not 
yet been prepared for her first communion. The incident 
of the Lady's reciting only the "Glory be to the Father" 
in the rosary was, if we may use the phrase, true to nature 
— touchingly so — as the Immaculate could not recite pray- 
ers which imply sin, in some degree, in the one praying; 
hut the circumstance was quite beyond the child's own 
thinking powers. She could report, however, what she 
had seen and heard. 

The eighteen visions were, all of them, received whilst 
the girl was in the presence of witnesses, who came on the 
first days by the score, afterward by the hundred, later by 
the thousand. On one occasion there were fifteen or twenty 
thousand present. During her visions the child seemed to 
be praying at times, and again to be speaking to her won- 
derful visitor or listening to her. She had a message from 
the Lady that a church must be built in her honor and pro- 
cessions organized to the scene of the apparitions — both of 
which requests have since been amply complied with. 

At times during her ecstasies the flame of a blessed can- 
dle which she held in her right hand was in contact with 
the fingers of the left, on one occasion for at least a quar- 
ter of an hour, but without affecting the fingers in the 
slightest degree. Persons in such abnormal states are 



Miracles 319 

known not to feel pain from contact with such objects, but 
for the living tissue not to be affected is anomalous. Berna- 
dette's fingers were not even singed. 

Another visible occurrence witnessed by the assembled 
crowds and one that has brought Lourdes the greater part 
of its celebrity was the wonderful opening of the spring 
at the Grotto — a spring that now flows in a copious stream 
and from which thousands have drunk for the healing of 
their infirmities. During one of the visions the child was 
directed to pass from where she was standing to the left 
of the Grotto and told to drink from and wash in the water 
of a spring. There was no spring to be found, and none 
had ever been known to have been there. But the child 
scraped the soil and scooped some of it away, and imme- 
diately water began to flow. It increased daily in volume, 
and to-day, after many a long year of uninterrupted abun- 
dance, it flows in a copious stream, supplying many large 
cisterns, from which the water of Lourdes has been con- 
veyed to the ends of the earth. The ''water of Lourdes" 
is to-day a household word throughout Christendom. 

There is another circumstance connected with these ap- 
paritions of quite a distinctive character. One day, as the 
child herself relates, ' ' the Lady, for an instant did not look 
at me, but looked beyond my head, and then again at me. 
I asked her what made her sad, and she said: 'Pray for 
poor sinners; pray for the world which is in such 
trouble.' " On the occasion of another ecstasy, "for a 
moment the child turned toward the spectators ; with tear- 
ful face and sobbing voice she repeated three times — 'Pen- 
ance, penance, penance ! ' She declared afterward that 
these were the very words she had heard the Lady utter." 
This circumstance is noteworthy as throwing light upon 
the moral purpose of the apparitions. 

The spring at the Grotto, which grew from a tiny rivulet 
to a full-flowing stream, soon became famous as having 
miraculous powers of healing. It was tested, as we have 
seen, for medicinal qualities, but was found to possess none. 
But it was used, not as a newly discovered drug might be 
used or as a thing that possessed any healing virtue in it- 
self, but as a natural element to which a supernatural effi- 
cacy had been given from above. Cures have been wrought, 
as we have seen, without the use of the water, but in all 
cases in connection with devotion to our Lady of Lourdes. 



320 Miracles 

The extraordinary publicity of the events we have been 
narrating compelled the attention and the practical inter- 
est of professional men and of the public authorities, civil 
and ecclesiastical. The result was that the evidence for 
the apparitions and the miracles was sifted with a care that 
left no loophole of escape for the skeptical. Both in the 
beginning and for many a year after, Bernadette stood 
the test of all manner of professional scrutiny, which 
aimed at proving, if possible, that her experiences were 
due to hallucination, or to hysteria, or to an abnormal de- 
gree of suggestibility, or that she had been guilty of wilful 
deception. But her life, her temperament, and her manner 
of describing what she had seen and heard were con- 
clusive against any such hypothesis. And was there not 
visible and public confirmation of what she had recounted ? 
Fortunately, her life was preserved for many a year and 
showed no developments that tended to reverse the favor- 
able verdict of her judges. 

We have been endeavoring to illustrate the process fol- 
lowed in the determining of the true character of reputed 
miracles. In the case of the Lourdes miracles, having 
eliminated natural causes from the inquiry, we have 
weighed the evidence for the supernatural, and the result 
is that the possibilities of causation are narrowed down 
to one thing — devotion to our Lady of Lourdes. Now, if 
under so great a variety of circumstances effects beyond the 
power of nature are seen to follow the acts of this particu- 
lar devotion, and especially if these effects have a historical 
background of supernatural manifestations which are well 
vouched for — is it not in accordance with the strictest rules 
of scientific investigation to attribute the effects to the de- 
votion as the instrument of supernatural power f 

When explaining at the beginning of this essay the na- 
ture of a miracle we distinguished between the stricter 
type of miracles, or those wrought directly by the power 
of God, and effects produced by finite beings in the other 
world, whose superior powers give them a dominion over 
matter. Now, in most cases it is impossible to know, ex- 
cept by revelation, to which of the two classes a proved 
miracle belongs ; but to whichever of the two classes it must 
be assigned, it may in some sense be called supernatural 
and the same moral effect is produced. A wonderful 
event has taken place contrary to all the laws of nature, 



Miracles 321 

and manifestly by intervention from on high. This, it 
seems to us, we have shown to demonstration to have been 
the case with the miracles of Lonrdes. 

To those who believe in a God and in a Providence the 
evidence for the supernatural in these miracles should be 
doubly convincing. For how could a provident God permit 
such multiplied signs of His special presence and power 
in a particular place, and that, too, with such evident in- 
crease of piety and of trust in His goodness and power, 
unless the reality were there no less than the appearance? 

Critical as the age is, it is difficult to see where any of 
its tests can succeed in breaking down the evidence for 
these miracles in any one particular. If an investigator is 
so dead set against the supernatural as to have no patience 
in examining the evidence for it, it would be a miracle if 
he were convinced. The true man of science is supposed 
to be open-minded enough to accept any evidence of facts, 
no matter from what quarter the evidence comes. If cer- 
tain men of science would make a study of the Lourdes 
miracles with even half the zeal with which they have 
studied spiritistic phenomena their pains would be better 
rewarded. 

As an introduction to the study we would recommend a 
work already mentioned, "Lourdes: A History of its Ap- 
paritions and Cures," by Georges Bertrin (New York). 
Concerning this work the Annates des Sciences Phy- 
siques, ''a skeptical review whose chief editor is Doctor 
Ch. Richet, Professor of the Medical Faculty of Paris, said 
in the course of a long article a propos of this faithful 
study: 'On reading it, unprejudiced minds can not but be 
convinced that the facts stated are authentic' " — Cath. 
Encyclopedia: Lourdes. 

Though we are chiefly concerned in this article with 
objections urged by the scientific skeptic, we can not close 
without having a word or two with our Protestant friends. 
The most general Protestant view of miracles is that, whilst 
they are possible and have actually taken place, they ceased 
to be wrought at the end of the apostolic age. What con- 
ceivable warrant is there for such an assumption ? Neither 
history, nor revelation, nor anything in the nature of 
things, can make it even plausible. History furnishes, if 
anything, positive indications to the contrary. Revelation 
from the lips of Our Lord gave assurance of signs and won- 



I 



322 Mixed Marriages 

ders that were to accompany the preaching of the Gospel, 
whilst it placed no limit of time to their occurrence. And 
some little reflection should convince one of the unlikeli- 
hood of the cessation of miracles at a time when they 
seemed to be as much needed as ever. According to the 
Protestant view — at least in its implications — as soon as 
the last of the apostles died the need of such supernatural 
manifestations ceased; but, again, what warrant for the 
assumption ? 

The truth is that the Protestant tenet is a traditional 
prejudice rather than a reasoned opinion. It had its origin 
in that undiseriminating hostility shown by the first Re- 
formers to many things, good and bad, which might with 
some degree of plausibility be set down as superstitions. 
Superstitions there were, and miracles, like many another 
good thing, might be counterfeited or too easily taken as 
facts; but good and bad are likely to be confounded when 
overtaken by such a whirlwind of revolution as lighted on 
the early sixteenth century. A tempest is a poor instru- 
ment for thrashing out the truth. Happily, after the storm 
had passed many sincere minds discovered that they had 
lost their true Christian bearings and hastened to recover 
them; and many in succeeding generations down to the 
present day have imitated their example. Let us hope that 
the continuous evidence of special divine favor enjoyed 
by the Church may prevail upon many in our day to re- 
view their whole mental attitude toward a Church which, 
unfortunately, they have been taught to regard as a pa- 
troness of superstition. 

MISSIONS 

See "Church of Christ, The, How to Find It," and 
''Church, The, as Mediator." 



MIXED MARRIAGES 

Objection. — The evils of mixed marriages are 
exaggerated, especially in a country like ours, in 
which there is a growing liberality of sentiment 
in matters religious. In a country in which "live 
and let live" is the prevailing principle, Catholic 



Mixed Marriages 323 

husbands and wives have little to fear from the 
religious hostility of their partners in wedlock. 

The Answer. — By whom are the evils of mixed mar- 
riages exaggerated? By the bishops and priests? Surely 
not. They, of all men, ought to know whether the evils 
of mixed marriages are realities or fictions. Catholics who 
are partial to mixed marriages would have their eyes open 
if they had but a small part of the experience of any priest 
who has seen half a dozen years of service. They would 
acknowledge that the prohibition placed upon mixed mar- 
riages is amply justified — even though they may have 
known cases in which the evils were comparatively small. 
A few odd cases of mixed marriages unattended by seri- 
ous evils constitute no argument against the general law 
prohibiting them. And yet there is scarcely any case in 
which harm is not done by the union of a Catholic and a 
non-Catholic ; and if the harm is not recognized by the 
Catholic party the fact argues a small appreciation of 
things that should be dear to the heart of every true 
Catholic. 

Marriage is the most intimate of unions, and in every 
well -assorted marriage the tendency of married life is to 
weld two hearts into one — to produce an identity of 
thought, desire, purpose, and action. Religion, on the other 
hand, is one of the most deeply rooted sentiments of the 
human heart. In the course of human history no other 
feeling has wrought so powerfully in uniting and in sun- 
dering hearts. The bloodiest of wars have had their origin 
in religious animosity. Now let us suppose that religious 
discord enters the sanctuary of wedded life: the more 
intimate the union might be on other accounts, the more 
bitter the estrangement ultimately produced by religious 
feeling. 

If the two were not united so intimately by their state 
there might not be the slightest antipathy between them. 
The same pair, if unmarried, might be friends lodging 
under the same roof, and difference of religion might not 
affect their mutual relations in the slightest degree; but 
make them man and wife, and you will find that you are 
attempting to mingle oil and water. The state into which 
they have entered, instead of being a bond of moral union, 
is really a principle of mutual repulsion. 



324 Mixed Marriages 

It is remarkable what a difference there is between court- 
ship and marriage in regard to the predominance of re- 
ligious feeling in either of the parties to a mixed marriage. 
It is only after the wedding that religious antipathy comes 
to the surface. During courtship Bertha is so charmed 
with Thomas as to fancy that the law of the Church could 
never have contemplated a case like his. Not only is his 
love sincere, but it is not cooled in the least by difference of 
religion. Indeed, he seems to be singularly liberal-minded, 
and it would be the most natural thing in the world that he 
should one day consent to be a Catholic ; if not before, at 
least after marriage. 

When courtship is approaching its term the religious 
question may be forced into prominence by Bertha's 
parents, and Thomas gives expression to sentiments which 
Bertha thinks ought to satisfy any Catholic. Before the 
marriage ceremony is performed, Thomas gives the solemn 
promise required that he will permit the offspring of the 
marriage to be brought up in the Catholic religion. He 
is doubtless sincere, but during courtship love has cast 
a glamour over his eyes and has given a roseate hue to 
things which might otherwise have caused repulsion. 

The marriage is celebrated — if "celebrate" is the word 
to designate the simple ceremony which is permitted and 
which may not be performed within the walls of a church. 
Soon the honeymoon is passed, and then husband and wife 
begin to settle down into their old selves. Conjugal love 
has lost nothing of its depth or of its sincerity, but it has 
lost a good deal of its enchantment, and things begin to 
appear in their true colors. Thomas begins to realize that 
he is a partner for life to one who goes to Mass and is 
therefore an idolater, and that he has pledged himself to 
let his children be brought up idolaters. But he still loves 
his wife, he respects his obligations and endeavors to swal- 
low his indignation. 

But by and by children appear on the scene, and then 
the Protestant in Thomas begins to assert itself anew. The 
sentiments of his Sunday-school and Bible-class days are 
felt again in all their pristine vigor. The idea that now 
dominates his mind is that he is master in his own house, 
and he resolves that his house shall not be a hotbed of 
idolatry. The rest of the tale need not be told, for it is a 
weU-known reality in thousands of households. The evil 



Mixed Marriages 325 

results are, of course, incalculable. Unhappioess and 
domestic dissension would be deplorable enough if they 
were the only evils resulting from mixed marriages, but 
they are nothing compared with the loss of faith in the 
children of such unions, of which evidence is furnished us 
every day of our lives. 

The case might be varied. Oftentimes the non-Catholic 
party is the wife, and in that case the influence of the 
mother is lost for the Catholic training of her children ; or 
perhaps she instils into the children a hatred for the re- 
ligion of their father. Occasionally there is a mutual com- 
pliance or a common indifference in matters of religion 
and the children grow up virtual pagans. The choice 
of a school for the children will be determined by the 
worldliest of motives. The secular interests of the children 
are the one absorbing thought of the parents. 

But even putting the case as mildly as possible — suppos- 
ing all promises are kept and the wishes of the Catholic 
party complied with — what an impassable gulf must sep- 
arate the members of such a family when they can not join 
one another in the worship of God — when religion can not 
form the subject of conversation at the family table — when 
the children, who would fain speak out of the abundance 
of their hearts about the many beautiful things associated 
with their Catholic faith, know that a seal is put upon their 
lips by the presence of their father, who regards all such 
things as superstitious and idolatrous — or when a loving 
wife stands at the dying bed of her husband and knows 
how little she can do for him in his passage to eternity. 
Perhaps she can not even make him realize the necessity of 
contrition for sin as a condition for reconciliation with God. 

Great are the burdens that must be borne by one who is 
a wife and a mother, even under the most favorable cir- 
cumstances. How much more burdensome her life when 
freighted with the evils of a mixed marriage! 

It is idle to talk of any change of conditions in our day 
by which mixed marriages are rendered less objectionable 
than they formerly were. They are more dangerous to-day 
than ever before. In the first place, the growing liberality 
of sentiment mentioned above is greatly exaggerated. 
There are still countless members of the sects who have im- 
bibed a hatred of Catholicity which is no less virulent than 
that of their ancestors. The majority of our countrymen 



326 Mixed Marriages 

have, it is true, deserted the churches and the Sunday- 
schools, but that only makes the case worse. Better Chris- 
tianity in some form than no Christianity at all. In the 
old days the non-Catholic husband of a Catholic wife had 
more commonly a sense of obligation to God and the natu- 
ral law; he had some appreciation of the necessity of a 
religious education for his children ; he had some notion of 
the divine law governing the relations between husband and 
wife; he held the doctrine, though in an imperfect form, 
that marriage can not be dissolved except by the death of 
one of the parties. But what can be expected to-day of 
the agnostic, the atheist, or even the indifferentist ? In their 
ease there is no barrier set up between right and wrong 
except convention or expediency. In the case of many a 
non-Catholic husband to-day there is no telling what he 
thinks in his secret heart about the duties of the married 
state. 

And now a few words of admonition to the young Cath- 
olic of marriageable age, for whom this article is chiefly 
written. 

1. The Church does not merely advise you not to marry a 
non-Catholic: she positively forbids you to do so. When 
the reasons are sufficient she may grant a dispensation, but 
she does so with reluctance and frequently in order to 
prevent a greater evil. She gives her consent to the mar- 
riage in the same spirit in which the father of the prodigal 
son gave him his portion of the family substance and per- 
mitted him to wander off into distant lands. 

2. If it is wrong to marry one who is not of your faith, 
it is also wrong to contract an intimacy that will probably 
lead to such a marriage. Be resolute in the beginning and 
you will save yourself a lifetime of misery. Suppress the 
tender feeling as soon as it begins to show itself. Seek 
other company, and trust that a heavenly providence will 
one day find you a suitable companion for life. 

3. Remember that love is apt to warp the judgment^ and 
that an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of 
cure. 



Monks 327 

MONKS 

Objection. — Monks and monasteries may have 
had a reason for existing in the Middle Ages, 
but in our day they have outlived their useful- 
ness. The present age wants labor — social labor 
— and no praying or idleness. (Socialistic.) 

The Answer. — The rule we follow is : Work and pray. 
Work is not sufficient by itself; there is need of prayer as 
well. A good part of the modern world feels no need of 
prayer, because it feels no need of God. Praying is not 
idling, and if it is not idling, the present age, with its 
countless professions, all-absorbed in work, has need of 
another profession that shall devote itself principally to 
prayer. 

But people who bear an invincible grudge against the 
monks for their occupation should be reminded that, after 
all, monks, in the strict sense of the word, i.e., contem- 
platives, constitute a small minority in the ranks of reli- 
gious. As regards the other Religious Orders, it must be 
admitted that they perform what is, in the best sense of 
the word, social labor. Witness the Benedictines and nu- 
merous other Orders which in Africa, Australia, and else- 
where have introduced Christian civilization, as the Bene- 
dictines of a former age civilized Western Europe. The 
same may be said of those who at home give missions to 
the people and thus contribute much to the preservation of 
religion and true civilization among them. The same praise 
is due to the teaching Orders and those that minister to 
the sick. 

Strange that those who plume themselves on being cham- 
pions of liberty should not allow each one to follow his 
bent. But the socialist is very naturally warped in his ap- 
plication of principles by one false principle which is at 
the root of his system, to wit, that all things receive their 
value — men as well as commodities — from the amount of 
manual labor they represent. 

But the aversion of the socialists to prayerful lives is 
shared by many who bear the name of Christians. It is 
remarkable how a certain class of people shut their eyes 
when they light upon certain passages in the Gospels. For 
their benefit we shall simply transcribe a short passage from 



328 Morality and Adenoids 

St. Luke (x. 38-42) in which, not without a special divine 
purpose, two well-defined living types of action and con- 
templation, respectively, are sketched by the sacred writer. 

"Now, it came to pass, as they went, that He entered into 
a certain town, and a certain woman named Martha received 
Him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who, 
sitting also at the Lord 's feet, heard His word. But Martha 
was busy about much serving. Who stood and said : Hast 
Thou no care that my sister hath left me alone to serve? 
Speak to her, therefore, that she help me. And the Lord, 
answering, said to her : Martha, Martha, thou art careful and 
art troubled about many things. But one thing is necessary. 
Mary hath chosen the best part, which shall not be taken 
away from her." 

Is it not true that some of the most obvious features of 
the typical Christian life have been forgotten by a large 
number of Christians? 



MORALITY AND ADENOIDS 

A Modern Error. — Moral habit and action are 
traceable to the pathological condition of the 
body and the emotional state of the mind. Free 
will and divine grace have nothing to do with 
morality. Here is a schoolboy who but yester- 
day was dull and peevish and showed vicious 
propensities. He is sent to a physician, who dis- 
covers it is all a matter of adenoids ! These once 
removed, he is a model of all that a schoolboy 
ought to be. Evidently, he had needed the di- 
vine less than the physician. 

The Real Truth of the Matter. — Few of our readers 
need to be told what adenoids are: they have had them 
removed — with the result, doubtless, that a bit of sunshine 
has been let into their lives and well-doing has become 
easier. God bless the physician ! May his tribe increase — 
at least, within certain limits. But, whilst opening up a 
world of pleasure to his fellow-mortals, it were a pity that 
his own knowledge of the moral and religious world should 
be cabined, cribbed, and confined within the limits of his 
professional experience, or that in matters ethical or re- 
ligious his mind should go no deeper than his scalpel. 



Morality and Adenoids 329 

The adenoids are gone and the boy is morally trans- 
formed! Well, we would not conclude so hastily that the 
boy is morally transformed. Outward good conduct is no 
infallible index of true interior virtue. But we can let 
that pass — the boy's outward conduct is changed, and we 
shall give him the credit of being morally transformed. But 
does it follow that the boy's morality is all a matter of 
adenoids ? 

Logic like this has been heard even in the utterances of 
believing Christians ! Strange, but true. The real fact is 
that only an impediment to virtue has been removed; but 
neither has the cause of immoral action been removed nor 
has the cause of right moral action been induced. The real 
cause efficient of acts belonging to the moral order lies in 
the will; and in the case of moral action that avails to 
eternal salvation it lies in the will as aided by divine grace. 
Not all the surgery in the world, beneficial or injurious, 
can prove anything to the contrary. Simply one of the 
many impediments to virtue has been removed by the physi- 
cian 's skill. A duty which the boy shirked yesterday is 
performed to-day. Why? Because it is less irksome to- 
day. The uncomfortable or painful feeling of yesterday 
which sought alleviation or distraction is to-day absent, 
and with it the sin it occasioned. 

The physician, like the philanthropist, does a good work 
in creating physical conditions favorable to virtue — may 
God reward them both — but neither the one nor the other 
touches the real cause of virtuous or sinful acts. We are 
not quarreling with results, but contending about the truth 
of things. 

The physician, we have said, has removed an impediment 
to virtuous conduct ; and yet it was not an absolute impedi- 
ment. The boy could have resisted it and followed the 
leading of conscience. But he did not choose to do it, 
because at the moment it was more pleasant not to do it. 
And the proof that he could have done the right thing is 
seen in his sense of guilt. A sense of guilt is universal in 
the case of wrong-doing. 

Unfortunately, most men, though in varying degrees, 
permit the impediment to become an effectual one, as if 
they had no will wherewith to oppose it. The prevalence 
of such weak surrender to circumstances lends no little 
countenance to the theory that moral action is not a matter 



330 Morality Without Religion 

of will-power, assisted or unassisted by grace, but of a nat- 
ural sense of pleasure or pain. Fortunately, there are many 
who rise superior to circumstances where it is a question 
of doing God's will. Providence has even brought it about 
that many servants of God — aided, of course, from on high 
— have exhibited an all but omnipotent force of will, both 
in resisting and in enduring. 

The particular illustration we have been pursuing, that 
of adenoids, furnishes but a sample of the natural forces 
or influences which are hindrances to virtuous action, so 
far as the will permits them to be such, but which mate- 
rialists and determinists quite arbitrarily set down as ir- 
resistible predetermining causes of moral evil. But the 
truth is that natural temperament, inherited dispositions, 
vicious environment, extreme poverty ; these, and other such 
conditions, may incline the will to evil, but they can never 
deprive it of its native independence. 

In the case of weak wills it is, of course, an act of 
mercy to remove the hindrance and supply the needed 
help; and to do so is the part of the divine, the philan- 
thropist, and the physician; but the greater number, as 
well as the worst of life's moral maladies, are beyond the 
reach even of the indirect aid supplied by the philanthro- 
pist or the physician. They need the healing power of 
grace as administered by the divine. 



MORALITY WITHOUT RELIGION 

An Illusion. — As men will never agree on the 
subject of religion the one remaining bond of 
society is morality without religion. Most men 
are agreed as to the essentials of morality. In 
this common sentiment, therefore, must we seek 
the basis of the social life of the future. 

Necessity of Religion. — Is it true that all men are of 
one mind as regards the essentials of morality ? We Chris- 
tians believe it to be the most sacred duty of men to 
believe in God, to hope in Him, to love and to serve Him, 
whilst those who believe in morality without religion ignore 
all duties to God. A wide divergence, this, on the most 
essential of all points of morality. It is the common teach- 
ing of Catholic theologians that a lie is intrinsically wrong 



Morality Without Religion 331 

and always sinful. Among non-Catholic authorities it is a 
very common opinion that certain kinds of lies are not 
sinful.^ Catholics are taught that marriage can not be 
dissolved. Is that the teaching of Protestants and socialists ? 
Catholics hold that a man's right to property in land is 
inviolable; socialists proclaim the recognition of any such 
right as one of the greatest evils of modern times. 

These are but samples of the broad differences of opinion 
that exist regarding the essentials of morality. The truth 
is that there is not a single point of morality on which all 
men agree. 

Morality without religion means morality without any 
basis of moral obligation. Apart from religion I can find 
no answer to the questions: Why must I do this? Why 
must I omit that ? If I discard the idea of a God by whom 
I was created, and to whom I owe obedience, there is noth- 
ing that can strictly oblige me to be honest if I am inclined 
to be dishonest. Honesty becomes a matter of expediency, 
and where I find it expedient to be dishonest I will not be 
honest. There is no obligation where there is no authority ; 
but there is no authority that is not either in God or de- 
rived from God. The One who made us is the only One 
who has absolute and unqualified authority over our wills. 
The obligations imposed by others — by one's parents, by 
the State — are valid only inasmuch as they rest on the au- 
thority of God. To sever morality from religion is to de- 
prive morality of all motive and all sanction. 

If the basis of all morality is God's will, we are bound to 
learn His will and know when, how, and where we are 
to observe it; and if He has revealed His will, we are to 
accept the revelation in its purest form and act upon it. 
This means the embracing of a definite form of religion, 
and, indeed, of the only one acceptable to God. 

There are a certain number of acts — such as the ob- 
servance of the laws and the paying of one's debts — which 
are generally recognized as necessary for the welfare of 
society ; but for the general performance of such acts what 
motives will be effective? The good of society as a motive 
of conduct may influence the select few who are made of 
finer clay than the rest of men, but it will operate very 
feebly among the masses. The selfish instinct, reinforced 

^Paulsen, E. Hartmann, and others. 



332 Mysteries 

by poverty and suffering, or goaded on by greed or ambi- 
tion, will surely overpower so shadowy a motive as the 
good of society or the progress of humanity. Perhaps a 
love of order will furnish the needed stimulus to civic vir- 
tue. No; for here, again, the select few will be the model 
citizens, whilst the great multitude of the uninspired will 
verge toward moral anarchy. 

The one bond of society is conscience, and when con- 
science disappears it will be followed by anarchy. But 
conscience is the voice of God heard in the heart, and to 
hearken to God's voice is, at least implicitly, an act of 
religion. 

A society that is gradually drifting away from religion 
may foolishly base its hopes of permanent existence on its 
present condition, in which, bad as it is, there is a public 
recognition of the moral law; but let it not forget that it 
owes its present recognition of the moral law, in the first 
place, to the actual influence of religion, which still has 
many loyal followers, and, in the second place, to that tra- 
dition of morality which is embodied in laws and usages 
inherited from a religious past. The further society drifts 
from the source of its morality, the more surely will moral 
principle disappear. Society has inherited much from re- 
ligion, but it is fast running through its fortune and is 
menaced by moral bankruptcy. 

MYSTERIES 

Objection. — A mystery is either in accordance 
with reason or against reason. If the first is true 
there is no mystery at all. If the second is true 
mysteries must be rejected. 

The Answer. — Every proposition must, of course, be 
either in accordance with reason or against reason. But 
there are propositions that are simply above reason, such, 
namely, as I can not grasp with my reason, but are, never- 
theless, not contrary to reason. Because my reason can not 
attain to them, they are not on that account contrary to 
reason. They are only beyond the reach of reason. There 
are mysteries in nature, such as the growth of plants, which 
are not contrary to reason because reason can not get at 
their secret. They are facts — mysterious facts, it is true— 



Original Sin 333 

but facts which may be known without being compre- 
hended. 

What is the nature of that force which is called gravi- 
tation, the force by which the universe is kept together ? It 
is a mystery. Its laws may be known, but its nature is 
mysterious. What difficulty, then, in admitting mysteries 
in religion? Provided I have the testimony of one who 
knows and who can not deceive, my mind should be ready 
to give its assent. If there exists an infinite God, mysteries 
are inevitable, for the Infinite can not be grasped by the 
finite. ( See ' ' The Trinity. ' ' ) 

ORIGINAL SIN 

Protestant View. — "Human nature, in conse- 
quence of Adam's sin, is utterly depraved." "As 
the Roman Church does not consider concupis- 
cence sin, that is only another proof that she 
has an erroneous conception of sin." 

Catholic Teaching. — The objection, though quite in- 
valid, has at least the merit of taking its stand on Chris- 
tian revelation. Our answer to it will have the same Chris- 
tian basis. The doctrine of the total depravity of human 
nature in consequence of Adam's fall is certainly not 
grounded in Scripture. For, otherwise, as man can not 
rid himself of his nature, he can not rid himself of sin, 
and the Scriptures could not speak of the just and the 
unjust, as they do in so many places. Nor could Scripture 
require us, as it does most explicitly, to renounce sin ; nor 
could St. Paul, after a long enumeration of grievous sins 
(1 Cor. vi. 11), place sin and innocence in such sharp 
opposition when he adds: "And such some of you were; 
but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are 
justified in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the 
Spirit of our God. ' ' 

The Catholic Church is right in regarding concupiscence 
as a different thing from sin — concupiscence being but an 
inclination to sin. Sin is a transgression of God's com- 
mands. Mortal or grievous sin is a deliberate renuncia- 
tion of God and eternal salvation. Concupiscence, on the 
other hand, is not a matter of free and deliberate choice. 
The suggestions of concupiscence come unbidden, and it is 



334 Original Sin 

only by consenting to them that we sin. The purest and 
holiest are not entirely free from concupiscence. The very 
persons whom St. Paul describes as cleansed from their 
sins are exhorted by him to struggle against concupiscence, 
for, otherwise, even those who are justified will lapse into 
all manner of sins and forfeit sanctifying grace (cf. Col. 
iii. 5 et seq.). 

The Catholic Church's conception of sin is proved to be 
the correct one by the very distinction she makes between 
concupiscence and sin. Even original sin, or the sin of 
our origin, is in very truth sin. It is a state of sin result- 
ing not from any act of ours, but from the act of our first 
parents. That we inherit this state of sin till released 
from it by sanctifying grace, we know only by revelation. 
The Catholic Church commits herself to this doctrine with- 
out any hesitation. It has been the traditional doctrine of 
the Church from the beginning. The Reformers' concep- 
tion of original sin was a novelty, and could find no foot- 
hold in the sacred writings or in the teachings of the 
Fathers. According to the Reformers, original sin is iden- 
tical with concupiscence, and, as concupiscence remains 
after Baptism, no real change of state is produced by 
Baptism — its only effect being that our sins are, as it 
were, covered over by the baptismal rite, and justice is 
imputed to us by God. But let any follower of the Re- 
form open the New Testament and turn to the fifth chapter 
of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. In verses 12, 18, 19, 
he will find the Apostle describing a state of real and veri- 
table sin inherited by the children of Adam. 

''As by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin 
death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all 
have sinned. . . . Therefore, as by the offense of one, 
unto all men to condemnation, so also by the justice of 
one, unto all men to justification of life. For, as by the 
disobedience of one man, many were made sinners^ so also 
by the obedience of one many shall be made just." 

If all have sinned in one, if all have been under con- 
demnation, if all have been made sinners by the sin of 
one man, there can be no question here of our being born 
merely into a state of concupiscence, but into a state of 
sinfulness; the more so as the Apostle contrasts the state 
produced by original sin with that of justice, or moral and 
supernatural goodness; but the opposite of moral good- 



Original Sin 335 

ness is moral badness, or sinfulness, and not an involuntary- 
inclination to sin, which is concupiscence. 

The sin of Adam was, therefore, transmitted to his 
entire race. As he was constituted by God not only the 
father, but also in a special sense the moral head of the 
human family, a stigma of sinfulness was to come upon 
every one of his descendants in case he sinned himself — 
just as in past history many a subject who has rebelled 
against his king has thereby forfeited all the lands and 
titles he had previously received from the free bounty of 
his sovereign, not only for himself, but for all his descend- 
ants as well. It is not for us to inquire how or why 
things were so ordered by the divine wisdom. But the fact 
is so impressive that it can not help awakening deep reflec- 
tion, in every serious mind, on the enormity of any griev- 
ous offense against the infinite and all-holy God. 

But God has not left us without a remedy for this moral 
infection that accompanies us at our entrance into life. 
Baptism awaits us at the threshold of our existence, and 
the sanctifying grace imparted by it restores, if not the 
special privileges of our first parents, at least that super- 
natural life which is the germ of our eternal life with God. 
Baptism does not merely ' ' cover over ' ' our sin, nor is right- 
eousness merely ' ' imputed " to us on our reception of Bap- 
tism. An intrinsic change is produced in the soul. Let any 
one who holds the Reformed doctrine on the effects of 
Baptism reflect seriously on the import of those expres- 
sions of Scripture in which the effects of Baptism are al- 
luded to. Let him ask himself what significance he has 
attached to such phrases as ''horn again of water" (John 
iii. 5) and the ''laver of regeneration," i.e., the cleansing 
of the new birth (Titus iii. 5). Has the second birth any 
significance unless the new life it imparts is intrinsically 
better than the old? Could any such metaphor as ''born 
again," or the ''new birth," be used with any propriety 
if it could be explained as a mere "covering over" of our 
sins, or as our having justice "imputed" to us, without 
the reality of justice? Or, does not cleansing imply the 
removal of what defiles, and is not the "laver of regenera- 
tion," therefore, a real and true removal of sin? Scrip- 
ture is a stumbling-block, and must always prove such, 
to the innovations in doctrine introduced in the sixteenth 
century. 



336 Pantheism 

PANTHEISM 

A Pantheistic Plea. — Pantheism, which teaches 
that God and the universe are one, has been held 
by so many eminent thinkers that it can not be 
so utterly foolish as it is sometimes considered ; 
and the tendency toward pantheism is rapidly 
increasing. 

The Answer. — There never was a system of thought so 
absurd as not to number among its adherents some wise 
heads who were not wholly wise and in whose minds there 
was considerable room for philosophic nonsense. Readers 
of Emerson, no doubt, feel they are conversing with a 
thinker in whom there is a dash of genius. Stimulated, 
perhaps at times elevated, by his thought, which is a 
product of his genius, they are oftentimes unaware that 
what they admire so much is an embroidery of sen- 
timent worked into a texture of the flimsiest pantheistic 
philosophy. 

Emerson, destitute of any sound philosophical training, 
and attracted by the speculations of the German school, 
has emulated his masters by playing the part of seer rather 
than that of a painstaking searcher after truth. **His 
reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of 
chaff: you shall seek all day ere you find them," and if 
you are fortunate enough to find them at all, '*when you 
have them they are not worth the search." 

It was the foggy, subjective philosophy of Fichte, Schel- 
ling, and Hegel that gave so great an impulse to modern 
pantheistic tendencies; and if pantheism is welcomed by 
many it is because they are interested in getting rid of a 
personal God or because they are attracted to a system 
which seems, though it only seems, to realize one of the 
principal aims of all philosophizing — the reduction of mul- 
tiplicity to unity. They take what is offered them by the 
pantheist, but without reckoning the cost. There have been 
no really great thinkers in modern times whose names have 
been associated with pantheism; whereas, against panthe- 
ism, are arrayed nearly all the great lights of the scien- 
tific world in all time. 

Pantheism teaches that the world is God and that God 
is the world. Things may seem to differ from one another 



Pantheism 337 

in substance, but in reality there is only one substance, 
and all things are modes of being or manifestations of the 
one infinite and eternal substance. "We human beings, with 
all that we think and do, are but a part of the grand 
panorama of changing phenomena that marks the evolu- 
tion of Deity. The pantheistic deity is not a personal God, 
intelligent, distinct from the world and free in his acts. 
He can not be prayed to; he can not be adored; he is 
simply the world, manifesting itself variously, now as brute 
matter, now as having animal life, and again as knowing 
and loving. He is not a sovereign being and men are not sub- 
ject to him. He is not the fountain-source of the moral 
law. In fact, there is, strictly speaking, no moral law, as 
things happen as they must, and human freedom is a 
chimera. It is only too plain that pantheism is virtual 
atheism : a pantheistic god is no god at all. 

The essential absurdity of pantheism should be evident 
to any one who realizes what is implied in its teachings. 
The wonder is that even a limited number of intellectual 
men should accept the doctrine apparently without any re- 
gard to its logical consequences. It is easy enough to think 
of the universe as a unit and then give it a name — ^the 
Be- All or the All-One, or whatever other name is preferred 
— but if one gets no further than that he is still in the 
region of fancy. It is easy to construct a system of panthe- 
ism and give it an air of scientific completeness ; it is quite 
another thing to reconcile all the contradictions which the 
system involves. 

Let any pantheist weigh well the words he uses in de- 
scribing his system, and we warrant him he will not be 
a pantheist five minutes longer. The pantheist does not 
simply read a unifying principle into the aggregate of 
things which are substantially different (we Christians do 
as much, though in a different way), but goes the whole 
length of asserting that all things constitute but one sub- 
stance — one nature — which evolves itself, by some law of 
necessity, in various forms of being and in varying phe- 
nomena. What meaning can the terms "substance" and 
** nature" convey to the mind of a pantheist? Given a 
certain substance, whatever be its nature, can it evolve itself 
in contradictory qualities? Can it be wise and foolish, for 
instance, at the same time and in regard to the same ob- 
jects in the moral order? And yet the pantheist combines 



338 Pantheism 

all the wisdom and folly in the world in one being, whom 
(or which) he identifies with the world. The same is true 
of all other categories of thought, feeling and action. No 
matter how incompatible two attributes may seem to be, 
they are found side by side in the accommodating nature of 
the All-One. 

A pantheist who knew his own mind would say, or might 
say, on observing any phenomenon of mind or matter, 
'"That is the All-One manifesting itself in that particular 
way." If he should light on a friend who carried in his 
head a very unsound philosophy, he would say, "There is 
the All-One under the aspect of a philosopher." If the 
next moment he should meet another friend whose philos- 
ophy was a flat contradiction of the first friend 's, he would 
say with equal complacence, "Ah, there is the All-One 
again under the aspect of a philosopher." He evidently 
unites all sorts of contradictions in his conception of the 
pantheistic deity. Morality and immorality, wisdom and 
folly, knowledge and ignorance, must be ascribed to this 
one all-embracing being. 

If all things are one, it is easy to imagine what strange 
antics the All- One must play. He is at once the lion and 
the lamb when the latter is devoured by the former. He 
kills himself and yet survives his killing when a thunder- 
bolt strikes a man dead, for thunderbolt and victim are 
identified in the one being. 

Experience, aided by reason, tells us that many things 
differ from one another substantially. Living beings, for 
instance, can not be confounded with non-living. One 
chemical element can not be identified with another. The 
individuals of a species differ and among human beings 
one differs from another and lives, so to speak, in a little 
world of his own. Has pantheism discovered a cryptic 
philosophy which reduces all things to one? The truth is 
that the pantheist is seized by the modern craze for re- 
ducing multiplicity to unity by new and as yet undiscov- 
ered ways. He is not satisfied, or professes not to be sat- 
isfied, with the Christian conception of the origin of things 
— a conception at once simple and sublime — according to 
which, before the universe was created, all things existed 
in God, not formally, that is to say, as they are when 
created, but eminently, or in a much higher manner, inas- 
much as God had from eternity not only a conception of 



Pantheism 339 

the universe in all its details, but also the power to bring 
it into existence. The pantheist professes not to be satis- 
fied with the evidence for this genesis of things, and 
straightway turns to a philosophy abounding in manifest 
contradictions. 

Perhaps the crowning absurdity of pantheism is its con- 
ception of the way in which the All-One evolves itself and 
advances toward its perfection. First of all, the only de- 
terminate existence it has consists in the changing facts 
or phenomena of the universe. Prior to and apart from 
these phenomena, it is nothing determinate. And yet the 
entire evolution of things is produced by something in- 
herent in its nature, to which, therefore, we must refer back 
all things as to their efficient cause. In other words, it 
is the cause of determinate existence and yet has no de- 
terminate existence of its own — which is a palpable ab- 
surdity. The primal cause of things must have an exist- 
ence of its own, and therefore a determinate mode of exist- 
ence — otherwise it is nothing. Hence, the pantheist pre- 
sents us with the idea of production out of nothing in a 
new form. He repudiates the idea of creation, which is the 
production of a thing out of nothing by the act of an 
omnipotent God, and then turns to contemplate nothing 'pro- 
ducing something without the aid of divine omnipotence! 
The trite objection against creation, urged by pantheists and 
others, to wit, that out of nothing nothing is made, may 
now be turned against this bundle of contradictions which 
passes under the respectable name of pantheism. 

As to the bearings of the system on morality, logically 
the pantheist can not speak of morality ; for morality sup- 
poses a universal moral law which has its primal origin in 
a personal divine Lawgiver. Pantheism can furnish no such 
basis for morality. The pantheist may profess to recog- 
nize with the rest of men two opposite moral aspects in 
human actions, but why he should call the one good and 
the other bad he has no reason furnished by his system of 
philosophy. With him morality is essentially a matter of 
convention or of expediency, and thereby ceases to be 
morality. 

Pantheism, nevertheless, seems to have a poetical aspect, 
which excites a certain effervescence in minds capable of 
feeling a delight in the thought of their identity with the 
Great Absolute; but poetry is one thing, objective truth 



340 Pope, The 

another ; though, for the matter of poetical inspiration and 
human consolation, what pantheistic idea ever rose to the 
level of the beauty and sublimity of the Christian concep- 
tion of man's ultimate perfection, as realized in his con- 
scious and never-ending union with the God whose perfec- 
tion is infinite ? The pantheist finds his consolation in drift- 
ing with the ages and ending in — nothing! 



PAUPERISM 

( Anti-Socialistic ) 
See ''Socialism II — Its Philosophy of History." 

POPE, THE 

I. SUCCESSOR OF ST. PETER IN THE ROMAN SEE 

Erroneous View. — "On the subject of St. 
Peter's residence in Rome we possess no trust- 
worthy information." — Schaefer's "Manual of In- 
struction," etc. — "It is only a guess . . . that 
St. Peter was ever at Rome at all; it is only a 
guess that he was ever Bishop of Rome." — Dr. 
Littledale. 

The Truth. — The above are specimens of the offhand 
judgments pronounced in our day upon a tradition which 
has ever been regarded in the Church as most trustworthy, 
resting as it does on the unimpeachable testimony of the 
historians, the Fathers, and the councils. 

Not a few leading Protestant thinkers are found to ex- 
press their entire dissent from the opinion so lightly deliv- 
ered by the Schaefers and Littledales of popular contro- 
versy. Even Harnack, who has so large a following in 
Germany and America, declared at a meeting of the Society 
of Art and Science, held at Hamburg in 1899, that St. 
Peter's dying in Eome was a proved fact of history. The 
following utterance of the professor is surely strong 
enough: "The martyrdom of Peter in Rome was con- 
tested, for controversial purposes, first by Protestant, after- 
ward by higher critical prejudice . . . ; but that the posi- 
tion was erroneous must be clear to any investigator who 
does not shut his eyes to the truth. The entire array of 



Successor of St. Peter in the Roman See 341 

critical arguments with which Baur combated the old tra- 
dition is to-day considered worthless." — Germania, Sep- 
tember 5, 1901. 

The Protestant authorities quoted by Dr. Ryder in 
"Catholic Controversy" — Chamier, Cave, Grotius, Pearson, 
Bramhall — express themselves no less decidedly. Kneller 
asserts and proves in his essay, ''Herr Soltau and St. 
Peter, ' ' that no fact of antiquity is better attested than the 
presence of St. Peter in Rome. His contention is chiefly 
based on the primitive tradition, upon which he remarks 
that no other city in the world ever claimed to possess the 
grave of St. Peter. 

A similar appeal to early tradition was made by the 
Protestant historian Schroeckh in 1770. He says : ' ' Some 
great scholars in the Protestant body have asserted, in the 
heat of controversy with the Roman Church, that St. Peter 
was never in Rome; but there is no other event of that 
period which has in its favor such unanimous testimony 
borne by the earliest Christian writers."^ Leibnitz may 
be added to the number of dissenting voices among Prot- 
estants. * ' The ancients, ' ' he says, * * unanimously attest that 
the apostle Peter governed the Church, suffered martyr- 
dom, and appointed his successor, in the city of Rome, the 
capital of the world. ' ' — Syst. TheoL, The Roman Pontiff, 

The Catholic thesis we are defending is equivalent to the 
double proposition, (1) St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and 
(2) the Popes have been his successors. The first part of 
the proposition has the testimony of universal Catholic tra- 
dition; and representative Protestant authorities, whilst 
bowing to the force of that tradition, either tell us ex- 
plicitly, or imply by their words, that denial of the tra- 
dition has been due to pressure of controversy. We deem 
it unnecessary to repeat the numerous citations from an- 
cient authorities to be found in Catholic treatises on the 
subject — from Irenaeus, Eusebius, Dionysius of Alexandria, 
Clement of Alexandria, Papias of Hieropolis, Ignatius of 
Antioch, and Clement of Rome. 

The second part of the proposition is equivalent to the 
assertion that the present Pope, Benedict XV, is the lat- 
est, in an unbroken succession, of Bishops of Rome from 
St. Peter downward. The list of the successors of St. 
Peter has been preserved — if * ' preserved ' ' is the apt word 

^Church Hist. (German), vol. ii., p. 155. 



342 Pope, The 

in the case of personages that stand out so prominently in 
the history of the world. The series of Popes is not lost in 
the twilight of fable, as Macaulay lightly put it. The 
Popes, from the first to the latest, have been historical per- 
sonalities, for each of whom there is a distinct record in 
the pages of history. The total number of the Popes, in- 
cluding the present venerable pontiff, is 260. 

Certain writers of our day have sought to cast doubt 
upon the unbrokenness of the Papal succession by point- 
ing to the fact that there have been times when there were 
several claimants to the pontifical throne, and that at those 
times considerable portions of the Church have been in 
doubt as to who were the rightful claimants. To those 
who are troubled with such scruples we would say, in the 
first place, that our list of the Popes would retain all its 
controversial significance even if it contained some doubt- 
ful names, which, however, we do not admit, for doubts 
or difficulties do not necessarily destroy the force of strong, 
positive evidence telling the other way. But even sup- 
posing that 260 names must be reduced to 255 by reason 
of doubts as to five on the list : if there is positive evidence 
that 255 Popes have been canonically elected, including the 
present pontiff, then it is certain that apostolical succes- 
sion in the See of Peter has been preserved, even though 
the Church were, for a short time, without a sovereign 
pontiff, as it, in fact, always is between the death of one 
Pope and the election of his successor. We see no essen- 
tial difference between a gap caused by the death of a 
Pope and a gap caused by the nullity of his election — pro- 
vided that finally right succession is established and 
perpetuated. 

The Great Western Schism, as it is generally named by 
historians, furnishes an interesting illustration of succes- 
sion established with absolute certainty after a period of 
what was considered in some quarters as doubtful succes- 
sion. The schism lasted thirty-nine years. The first of 
the Popes whose title was questioned was Urban VI (1378). 
The validity of the election was denied by certain of the 
cardinals who had elected him, although by their previous 
words and acts they had acknowledged him as the legiti- 
mate Pope. His claims were admitted by the most distin- 
guished ecclesiastical lawyers of the day. As to modern 
opinions, the most eminent Catholic and many Protestant 



Christ's Vicar 343 

authorities agree with the jurists of the earlier period. If 
Urban 's title to the office was valid, the three Popes suc- 
cessively chosen by the cardinals acknowledging Urban 's 
jurisdiction were no less validly elected. But in the pres- 
ent connection the question concerns us little. There can 
be no doubt that a lawful successor to the See of Rome was 
appointed in the person of Martin V, by whose election 
the schism was healed. The point we insist on is that there 
has been a succession of legitimate pontiffs from St. Peter 
to Benedict XV. If during the entire schism there had 
been no Pope at all — that would not prove that the office 
and authority of Peter was not transmitted to the next 
Pope duly elected. 

POPE, THE 

II. Christ's vicar 

Erroneous View^. — The primacy of the Bishop 
of Rome is not foimded on Scripture and is sim- 
ply the result of a struggle for supremacy in 
which the Roman pontiff won. 

Catholic Doctrine. — The primacy of the Bishop of 
Rome is identical with the primacy conferred on St. Peter. 
In other words, the Bishop of Rome is the successor of 
St. Peter in the primacy. That St. Peter received the pri- 
macy, or supreme headship, in the Church is clearly indi- 
cated in Scripture. That the Bishop of Rome is the suc- 
cessor of St. Peter in the primacy has been the constant 
and universal teaching of the Church. It is proved, 
moreover, by theological arguments based upon the nature 
and constitution of the Church. There has been no struggle 
for supremacy by the Bishop of Rome, as the Church, in 
the beginning and throughout its history, has acknowl- 
edged the supreme dominion of the See of Rome. The 
arguments in favor of these positions we shall proceed to 
develop. 

I. ST. PETER CONSTITUTED HEAD OF THE CHURCH 

Our first witness to the primacy of St. Peter is St. John 
the Evangelist. In the first chapter of his Gospel (41, 42) 
he relates that when Andrew had seen and conversed with 
the Lord, he brought his brother Simon to him. "And 



344 Pope, The 

Jesus, looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son 
of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted 
Peter." The Lord thus gave Simon a new name, Cephas, 
an Aramaic word meaning rock. The significance of this 
change of name, though certainly very striking, would per- 
haps remain somewhat vague had we not the following well- 
known passage in St. Matthew: 

*'And He asked His disciples, saying: "Whom do men 
say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John 
the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or 
one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do 
you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: 
Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus, 
answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar- 
Jona; because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, 
but My Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: 
That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My 
Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it*' 
(Matt. xvi. 13-18). 

Here, on the occasion of Peter's confession of faith, the 
Lord promises to make him the very foundation of His 
Church — or, in other words, the principle of its stability 
and of its resistance to the powers of evil (the *' gates of 
hell"). The significance of these words can not easily be 
exaggerated. They are much stronger words than any 
used to set forth the greatness of the role played by any 
eminent man in the affairs of the world. When we say 
of one that he was the head and front of some great under- 
taking, or of another that he was the soul of some great 
enterprise, we are using words of high commendation ; but 
how they dwindle in significance when we think of one 
who was made the very foundation — the rock on which was 
built the superstructure — of a great institution of world- 
wide influence which was to confer ineffable benefits upon 
mankind, even to eternity! But, what is more significant 
still, Peter's prerogative is in some sense to be perpetual; 
for as the Church was to withstand the assaults of hell 
to the end of time, its foundation, as laid by Christ, must 
remain forever. We shall see later in what sense Peter is 
the perpetual foundation of the Church. 

The idea of the primacy is still further developed in 
other parts of the Gospels. Let the reader weigh well the 
following passage from St. John describing a scene that 



Christ's Vicar 345 

took place after the resurrection. It will exhibit the pri- 
macy, not as an honorary office, but as the office of one 
who is commissioned to instruct, guide, and govern the en- 
tire Church, pastors, and people. The scene is laid on the 
shore of the Sea of Tiberias, where the risen Lord had 
prepared a simple repast for His apostles against their re- 
turn from their labors at the net. 

"When, therefore, they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon 
Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than 
these [i.e., more than the other apostles] ? He saith to 
Him: Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee. He 
saith to him: Feed My lamhs. He saith to him again: 
Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me? He saith to Him: 
Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee. He saith to 
him: Feed My lamhs. He saith to him the third time: 
Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me? Peter was grieved 
because He had said to him the third time, Lovest thou 
Me ? And he said to Him : Lord, Thou knowest all things : 
Thou knowest that I love Thee. He said to him: Feed 
My sheep" (John xxi. 15-17). 

The first thing to be noted about this passage is that St. 
Peter is singled out in a special manner and is separately 
addressed. His Lord draws from him a triple profession 
of love; and now, after this special expression of devo- 
tion, what special mark of divine favor is going to be be- 
stowed upon him ? Nothing less than the tending and feed- 
ing of Christ's flock — the whole of His flock, sheep and 
lambs alike; or, in other words, the supreme ruling of 
Christ's Church, pastors as well as people. The expres- 
sions *'My sheep" and "My lambs" are sufficiently ex- 
plicit — they can mean nothing but the entire flock. 

And although the other apostles also were to tend the 
flock of Christ, their commission to do so is nowhere so sig- 
nificantly worded or so expressive of universal power. And 
then, if we consider the incidents narrated in the above 
extract, we may ask with perfect justice, is it possible that 
Our Lord could have given such signal prominence to St. 
Peter in this scene and drawn from liim so special a pro- 
testation of love and devotion without intending to confer 
upon him by the words, "Feed My sheep, etc.," special 
and exclusive powers in the government of the Church ? If 
any doubt remains in the reader's mind, let him compare 
the passage we are considering with one quoted above and 



346 Pope, The 

ask himself if the one does not explain and supplement the 
other and both together point unmistakably to the primacy ; 
"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My 
Church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ' ' 

We can now understand the full import of the words 
reported by St. Luke (xxii. 31, 32) : "Simon, Simon, Satan 
hath desired to have you [i.e., all the apostles, the pronoun 
being in the plural], that he may sift you as wheat. But 
I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and thou 
being once converted, confirm thy brethren." Peter is 
here constituted the mainstay of the faith in God's Church ; 
a prerogative which is one of the essential features of 
the primacy. 

But the texts upon which we have based this demonstra- 
tion of the primacy of Peter are not the only ones bearing 
on his peculiar position in the Church. Passages abound 
in which St. Peter is brought into special prominence ; and 
these can have but one meaning when interpreted in the 
light of what we have seen. Wherever we find a list of 
the apostles' names {e.g.. Matt. x. 2; Mark iii. 16; Luke vi. 
14; Acts i. 13), Peter's is the first. St. Matthew begins 
his list by these words, "The first, Simon, who is called 
Peter" [or the Rock] — intimating, in all probability, that 
he is named first because he was the rock or foundation of 
Christ's Church. SS. Mark and Luke also, in their re- 
spective lists, remind us that the surname of Peter had 
been added to the apostle's ordinary name. 

Besides these passages, there are numerous texts relat- 
ing to incidents in the Gospels in which Peter is specially 
conspicuous; the following, for example: "And Simon 
and they that were with him" (Mark i. 36), "Peter and 
they that were with him" (Luke viii. 45), "Peter and the 
apostles answering" (Acts v. 29). Peter was the recipient 
of many special marks of favor from his Lord. His house 
was Jesus' place of abode at Capharnaum; from Peter's 
fishing-boat the Lord addressed the multitude; at his 
Master's bidding Peter paid the coin of tribute, miracu- 
lously provided, for himself and his Lord — as though the 
Master identified Himself with His disciple. Peter was 
the first of the apostles to see the risen Saviour (1 Cor. 
XV. 5 ) . After the resurrection the angel at the sepulcher, 
speaking in the name of the Lord, told the holy women 
to "go tell His disciples and Peter." 



Christ's Vicar 347 

After Our Lord's ascension Peter's behavior is altogether 
in keeping with the exceptional position he occupied during 
Our Lord's lifetime. He presided at the election of Mat- 
thias (Acts i.)- It was Peter that inaugurated the minis- 
try of the word on Pentecost Day. At the first assembly 
of the apostles and the ancients at Jerusalem it was Peter 's 
opinion that prevailed for the settlement of an important 
question. 

The evidence, then, is abundant — superfluously abun- 
dant — for the fact that St. Peter held a unique position in 
respect to the other apostles; one, indeed, that, if all the 
texts be well weighed and compared, must seem to be noth- 
ing short of a primacy of authority identical with that of 
Catholic dogma. 

The strange thing is that any other meaning but the one 
we have indicated should have been taken out of the texts 
we have cited. To suppose that one who is seen to exer- 
cise, on so many occasions, a primacy of some sort — one 
who is declared by his divine Master to be the rock on 
which the Church is huilt — one who is made the bulwark 
of the faith for the rest of Christ's disciples — one who is 
constituted the feeder of Christ's entire flock — to suppose 
that such as he possessed no more than an honorary pri- 
macy — ^hardly more than a permanent chairmanship — is to 
show a degree of skepticism which is rarely exhibited in the 
weighing of evidence in purely secular matters. 

As the subject of the primacy is one of sovereign impor- 
tance, we would ask any non-Catholic inquirer who may 
light on these pages to give the maturest consideration to 
the texts and facts we have cited from the Sacred Books 
before reading any controversial matter on this particular 
topic. Nay, we should much prefer that the non- Catholic 
reader should stop at this point and not read another line 
of this article on the primacy, if he has not taken the 
trouble to make a comparative study of the passages cited 
above and endeavored to view each in the light shed upon 
it by the others. Speaking generally, we would add that a 
little at a time, but that little well considered, is an indis- 
pensable rule for those who wish to be solidly convinced. 

II. THE POPE THE SUCCESSOR OP ST. PETER IN THE PRIMACY 

And now, the connecting link between the primacy of 
Peter and the primacy of the present reigning pontiff, Ben- 



348 Pope, The 

edict XV. In the first place, let us cast a rapid glance at 
the primacy as conceived and realized in the Catholic 
Church to-day. The Roman Catholic Church is the only 
Church possessing a unity which in any degree corresponds 
to the ideal which was in the mind of the divine Master — 
an ideal for the realization of which He prayed — and, of 
course, effectually — to His Heavenly Father. 

**And not for them only [the apostles] do I pray, but 
for them also who through their word shall believe in Me. 
That they all may he one, as Thou, Father, in Me and I 
in Thee. That they also may be one in Us : that the world 
may believe that Thou hast sent Me" (John xvii. 20, 21). 

The prayer of Christ must have been heard ; and that it 
has been heard is witnessed by the unity of the Church in 
communion with Rome; a unity which grows ever more 
wonderful with the succeeding ages. But what is the secret 
of such unity ? Can there be more than one answer to the 
question? Ask our enemies how it is that Catholics in 
every clime have but one way of thinking and acting, when 
the rest of the world is in a constant ferment of conflicting 
opinions. They will tell you that it is because Catholics 
are Pope-ridden. The epithet is insulting, but it contains a 
kernel of truth. It is precisely the Pope's primacy that 
preserves unity of faith and worship among almost 300,- 
000,000 Catholics, who are found in every clime and repre- 
sent every phase and variety of human existence. 

Imagine what the Catholic Church would be to-day with- 
out the primacy. A body without a head inevitably tends 
to dissolution. The larger a social organization and the 
more varied its membership, the greater the need of a 
center of authority. In the case of any human society, to 
provide an internal principle of cohesion is deemed but 
ordinary human wisdom. God, it is true, has infinite re- 
sources at His command, and the primacy is not the only 
conceivable means by which He might have provided for 
the unification of the Church. But He does, as a matter 
of fact, adapt Himself to our human ways; and that He 
has done so in the organizing of His Church is proved by 
the fact that, on the one hand, the actual exercise of a 
primacy has a wonderful effect in the unifying of the 
Church, whilst, on the other, the absence of the primacy in 
bodies designated as Christians is everywhere marked by a 
tendency to division and disintegration. 



Christ's Vicar 349 

The necessity of a central authority may be conceded by 
some of our opponents, but the necessity of its being vested 
in a single individual may not be granted so easily. Those 
who deny the primacy of the Pope would not always be 
so unwilling to accept the decrees of a general council. 
But a little reflection will show that general councils, as 
ordinary instruments of government in a world-wide re- 
ligion, would prove exceedingly impracticable. It is now 
forty years since the Vatican Council was obliged to dis- 
continue its sittings, and meanwhile a hydra-headed heresy 
known as Modernism has sprung up, against which the 
world would be well-nigh helpless had it no refuge but in 
a general council. 

The much-needed exercise of primatial power by the 
late sovereign pontiff in rooting out this heresy of heresies 
is but one illustration of the part played by the Roman 
pontiffs from the beginning in their preservation of 
Catholic doctrine. So comprehensive has been their ac- 
tion that there is scarcely a single religious truth which 
does not owe its preservation to the sovereign authority 
wielded by the bishops of Rome. Many of these truths 
are still retained and cherished by most of our separated 
brethren; and a serious consideration of this fact should 
beget not only gratitude to the Roman pontiffs, but the 
conviction that the primatial authority of the Popes is not 
an accident of history, but the result of a special 
providence. 

No less objectionable would be the ordinary government 
of the Church by a permanent committee or commission 
elected by and representing a general council, for this would 
be the handing over of the Church to an oligarchy which 
would have no authorization either in Scripture or in tra- 
dition. The Church was to have been governed either by 
the bishops or by the Pope, or by both together, but not 
by an arbitrarily constituted bureau. Moreover, in any 
council or governing committee the presiding officer must 
be vested with considerable authority; and when we con- 
sider the important matters that might be affected by his 
rulings — touching, as they would, at one point or another, 
directly or indirectly divine revelation itself — we can see 
the necessity of such an officer's possessing primatial au- 
thority of the highest order. In point of fact, at all gen- 
eral councils of the Church it was deemed necessary that 



350 Pope, The 

the meetings should be presided over either by the Pope 
or by his specially appointed legate. 

We are now within measurable distance of the connect- 
ing link between the primacy of the present Pope and the 
primacy of Peter; but we must let the argument develop 
itself further. We now see that a primate is necessary. 
The primacy of one is needed for the unity of the many. 
But in the mind of the divine Founder of the Church unity 
was to be a perpetual condition of the Church's life and 
ministry; therefore, the primacy must always have been, 
and in the future must be, absolutely necessary for the 
preservation of essential unity. Moreover, it is not only 
necessary in the abstract, but must have been realized as 
a fact in history; for, unless we are willing to admit that 
the unity of the Church has been destroyed — which would 
prove that the prayers of the Son of God for unity were 
but vain and idle words that never reached the throne of 
God — or that the gates of hell have prevailed against the 
Church, contrary to the Lord's assurance — and that, con- 
sequently, He has ceased to be present among His disciples, 
contrary to His explicit promise; unless we are willing to 
believe that the realization of long ages of prophecy and 
the culmination of the work of Providence is a jumble of 
conflicting doctrines and a flock dispersed because the 
shepherd is stricken — we must admit that the Church has 
not been without a sovereign ruler — one who is such both 
in fact and in right — one who has been invested from on 
high with sufficient authority to preserve the unity which 
the divine Master had so much at heart. 

But who can such a primate be if not the Bishop of 
Rome? He is the only bishop who has laid claim to the 
title; he is accepted as primate by much the largest body 
of Christians; and the Eoman pontiffs have claimed and 
exercised the rights of primates from time immemorial. 
Moreover, the fruits of the primacy are shown in a won- 
derful unity which brings in its train peace, order, and 
a single-minded devotion to God's glory. 

Finally, as this long succession of primates must have 
had a beginning, as there must have been one who was the 
first of the primates, who can possibly be the first if not 
he whom we have seen appointed the ruler of the Church 
from the beginning? The Popes, therefore, are the suc- 
cessors of Peter, who continues to be the foundation of 



Christ's Vicar 351 

Christ's Church in the persons of those who have succes- 
sively occupied his see. And, indeed, the continuance of 
the office after the death of St. Peter seems to be implied 
in the words, ''upon this rock I will build My Church," 
for the foundation must remain if the building is to en- 
dure; and Peter must still be regarded as the foundation 
of the Church inasmuch as he has transmitted his powers 
to his successors. And the same significance attaches to 
the words, ''and the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
it" ; for to withstand the assaults of the demons the Church 
must always retain its firm position on its original 
foundation. 

Thus the latest century of Christianity is connected with 
the first. And yet the distance between them, as measured 
by the lapse of years, is so great that our readers will de- 
sire to see how they are connected by the chain of historical 
events. They would like to see the primacy in action dur- 
ing all those centuries, or at least during the first five, a 
period which is regarded by most Christians of the present 
day as one of great purity of faith and worship. We 
shall, therefore, exhibit in brief the witness of the Fathers 
of the primeval Church both to the fact and to the right 
of the primacy as exercised by the Eoman See. 

In the first century and in the lifetime of St. John the 
Evangelist, a schism having broken out at Corinth, the 
Corinthians appealed to St. Clement, Bishop of Borne, who 
wrote the schismatics a powerful letter enjoining submis- 
sion to the authorities. The following remarkable passage 
is commended to the attention of the reader: 

"If any disobey the words spoken by God through us, 
let them know that they will entangle themselves in trans- 
gressions and no small danger, but we shall be clear from 
the sin. . . . You will cause us joy and exultation if, 
obeying the things written by us through the Holy 
Spirit, etc." 

This remarkable epistle of Pope Clement's is mentioned 
favorably by St. Irenseus. We know from the testimony of 
Eusebius that it was read in the churches. ' ' This, ' ' he says, 
"we know was publicly read in many of the churches, both 
in former times and in our own." Dionysius, an earlier 
witness, who in the year 171 was created bishop of this 
very city of Corinth, testifies to the same custom. 

At each of the four first general councils, those, namely, 



352 Pope, The 

of Nicsea (a.d. 325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), 
and Chalcedon (451), legates of the Pope, specially ap- 
pointed for the purpose, presided. As regards the Council 
of Ephesus, nothing can be more manifest than that the 
action taken by that council against the heresiarch Nes- 
torius was simply prescribed by Pope Celestine, who, in his 
letter to the council, says that he has sent his legates 'Ho 
be present at what is done and to execute what has teen 
previously ordained by us.'* 

Acknowledgment of the Pope 's primacy appears at every 
turn in the proceedings of the council; as, for instance, 
when Firmius, Bishop of Cappadocia, said: "The Holy 
Apostolic See of the most holy bishop Celestine has already, 
by the letter sent to the most religious bishop Cyril, pre- 
scribed the sentence and the order to be observed in the 
present proceedings. We have adhered to this and have 
put that decree into execution, pronouncing the canonical 
and apostolical judgment on [Nestorius]." 

In the third session the words of Philip, the Papal legate, 
which were received with approval by the assembled 
Fathers, show that the Papal power was believed to have 
its root in the primacy of Peter : ' ' It is doubtful to none, 
yea rather it has been known to all ages, that the holy and 
most blessed Peter, the prince and head of the apostles, the 
pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, 
received from Our Lord Jesus Christ the keys of the king- 
dom, and to him was power given to bind and to loose sins ; 
who even until now and always, both lives and exercises 
judgment in his successors. Wherefore our holy and most 
blessed Pope Celestine, the bishop, his successor in order 
and holder of his place, has sent us to the holy synod as 
representative of his person. As, therefore, Nestorius, the 
author of this new impiety, has not only allowed the term 
fixed by the Apostolic See to pass by, but also a much longer 
period of time, the sentence upon him stands ratified by 
a decree of all the churches. . . . Wherefore let Nestorius 
know that he is cut off from communion with the priesthood 
of the Catholic Church. ' ' 

The sovereign position of the Pope is no less strongly 
evidenced by the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon, 
composed of about 600 bishops, the largest number up to 
that time assembled. The council was convened by Papal 
authority. Among other testimonies to this fact is the 



Christ's Vicar 353 

declaration of the bishops of Mysia, in a letter addressed 
to Marcian, the Emperor of Constantinople: "Many 
bishops are assembled at Chalcedon hy command of the Ro- 
man Pontiff Leo, who is truly the head of the bishops.'' 
The act by which in this council Pope Leo deposed 
Dioscurus, Bishop of Alexandria, was preceded by a 
declaration of the Papal legate, Paschasinus, from which 
we extract the following passage: ''Whereupon Leo, the 
most holy and blessed archbishop of the great and elder 
Rome, has by the agency of ourselves and the present synod, 
in conjunction with the thrice-blessed and all-honored 
Peter, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic 
Church and basis of the orthodox faith, deprived him of 
the priestly dignity and every priestly function. Accord- 
ingly, this holy and great synod decrees the provisions of 
the canons against the aforesaid Dioscurus." 

The sentence which thus emanated from the Sovereign 
Pontiff was signed by all the members of the council. Be- 
fore drawing up a confession of faith the council ordered 
several documents to be read, among others a letter from 
Pope Leo. On hearing the letter, the Fathers exclaimed: 
''This is the faith of the apostles. We all believe this. 
The orthodox believe this. Anathema to him who does not 
believe it. Peter has spoken thus hy the mouth of Leo." 

That the Popes of the first centuries frequently asserted 
their prerogative is acknowledged by many Protestants, but 
they quietly assume that such assertion was but the begin- 
ning of an evil which culminated in the decree of the Vati- 
can Council. But, surely, the facts already brought to the 
reader's attention prove that if the claims of the Popes 
were false the acquiescence of the bishops must have com- 
mitted the whole Church to an error in doctrine and in 
practice; and yet we are dealing with a period which is 
universally regarded as standing in no need of reform. 

That the See of Rome was regarded as the final court of 
appeal might be proved by numerous cases brought to it 
for decision. We shall confine ourselves to a case asso- 
ciated with the name of the greatest of the Doctors of the 
West, St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in Africa. The 
bishops of Africa, having assembled in council, first at 
Carthage and afterward at Milevi, and having condemned 
the doctrines of Pelagius on grace, sought a confirmation 
of their sentence by the See of Rome. For that purpose 



354 Pope, The 

they wrote to Pope Innocent a letter from Carthage and 
a second one from Milevi, and in both they acknowledged 
the superior authority of the Apostolic See. ''It is our 
judgment," they say, "that by the mercy of the Lord 
God, who deigns both to direct your consultations and to 
hear your prayers, the authors of these perverse and per- 
nicious opinions will yield more easily to the authority of 
Your Holiness, which is derived from the authority of the 
Holy Scriptures." 

What authority of Scripture can be referred to if not 
the authority of the texts we have quoted in favor of St. 
Peter's primacy? In a third letter written by five of the 
African bishops, one of whom was St. Augustine, the writ- 
ers address the Pope in these words : ' ' Our purpose is to 
have it proved by you that our rivulet springs from the 
same fountain-head as your abounding river, and to be con- 
soled by your rescript in the consciousness of participating 
one grace." 

But the story does not end here. Pope Innocent answered 
the letter of the African bishops by an epistle which asserts 
the necessity of Papal confirmation for the decrees of local 
councils; and it is in reference to this letter that St. Au- 
gustine, writing to Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, says: "Pope 
Innocent of blessed memory answered all that we said as 
was right and as became the prelate of the Apostolic See. ' ' 
It was in reference to the same decision that those other 
more famous words of St. Augustine were used: "Two 
councils \_i.e., reports of the proceedings of two councils] 
have been sent to the Apostolic See, and an answer from 
it has been received. The case is ended. May the error 
itself be ended." (Serm. 131, Contra Pelag.) 

We may remark in passing that even non-Catholic read- 
ers must at this point be struck by the resemblance of the 
Church of St. Augustine's day to the Catholic Church of 
our day. 

Our readers can not be surprised that the Pope's deci- 
sions were regarded as final when they glance at the testi- 
monies furnished by the writings of the Fathers in favor 
of precisely that conception of the Papal prerogative which 
is conveyed by Catholic teaching to-day. The following 
passages are specimens : 

St. Iren^us (a.d. 178). — "With this church [of Rome] 
on account of her superior [or, according to another read- 



Christ's Vicar 355 

ing, her more powerful] headship, it is necessary that every 
other church — that is, the faithful everywhere dispersed— 
should he in communion," 

The opponents of the Papacy are keenly aware of the 
value of the testimony of Irenasus, who was a pupil of 
the immediate disciples of the apostles; and, hence, anti- 
Papal ingenuity has been exercised to the full in the en- 
deavor to wrest the above sentence from its true meaning. 
They have fastened upon single words in the text and 
have attempted to show in each case that the meaning is 
not necessarily pro-Papal. But the question is settled by 
the context of the words quoted, which are found in the 
treatise "Cont. Haer./' Ill, c. 3, n. 1-3. Against certain 
heretical opinions, the writer appeals to the traditional 
teaching of the bishops, who in succession have ruled the 
several parts of the Church founded by the apostles; but, 
as he remarks, ' ' as it would take too long, in a volume such 
as this, to enumerate the successive occupants of all the 
sees," he appeals to the traditional teaching of the Roman 
See, whose successive rulers, from the time of the apostles, 
he names. "With this church, on account of her superior 
or more powerful headship, it is necessary that every other 
church . . . should be in communion." Evidently he 
regards the Church of Rome as the standard church in 
doctrine. All others must agree with it. There is no pos- 
sible interpretation of this dictum of Irenaeus that will 
make the words equally applicable to any other church. 
If this is not the primacy of the Roman bishops, what can 
it be? 

But St. IrenaBus confirms the interpretation we have given 
his words by referring with commendation to the decision 
of Pope Clement in the case of the Corinthian schism, a 
case in which the Corinthians themselves had appealed to 
Rome and in which they had received an answer in a 
tone of authority which perhaps has few parallels in Papal 
utterances. An extract from the Pope's letter has been 
given above. ' ' Under this Clement, then, ' ' writes Irenaeus, 
"there having happened no small dissension among the 
brethren who were at Corinth, the Church which is at Rome 
wrote a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, gathering 
them together to peace, and repairing their faith, and an- 
nouncing the tradition which it had so recently received 
from the apostles.' ' 



356 Pope, The 

St. Cyprian (a.d. 250^. — "After all this, they dare to 
sail and to carry letters from schismatics and profane per- 
sons to the Chair of Peter and to the leading church, whence 
the unity of the priesthood has its origin. Nor do they 
consider that they [to whom they are carrying letters] are 
the same Romans whose faith is praised in the preaching of 
the Apostle, and to whom heretical perfidy can have no 
access." The distorting process has been applied to these 
words also ; but the short passage so repeatedly emphasizes 
one and the same thing and its parts so effectually sup- 
port one another that all attempts to wring the Roman pri- 
macy out of it have proved abortive. In his epistles, the 
saint calls the Roman Church the "root," the "mother," 
the "parent-stem" of Catholic unity. 

St. Gregory Nazianzen (a.d. 370). — "The faith of Rome 
was of old and is now right, binding the whole West by 
the saving word; as is just in her who presides over all, 
reverencing the whole harmonious teaching of God. ' ' 

St. Optatus of IMilevi (about a.d. 370). — "You can not 
deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome upon 
Peter, first of all, was conferred the episcopal seat in which 
he sat, who was the head of all the apostles; whence he 
was called Cephas (the rock) ; so that in this one chair 
unity might he preserved hy all, lest the other apostles 
might each lay claim to a chair of his own." He then 
gives a list of the successors of Peter, down to the reign- 
ing pontiff, "with whom we and the whole world, besides, 
are united in the bond of communion by the interchange 
of letters of peace." 

St. Ambrose (died a.d. 391). — 1. Speaking of one who 
had arrived after shipwreck in a strange place, he says: 
"He called the bishop to him and, not deeming any grace 
true which was not of the true faith, he inquired of him 
whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with 
the Roman Church.'' 2. "From the Church of Rome the 
rights of venerable communion flow unto all." 3. "We 
have recognized in the letter of Your Holiness the vigilance 
of the good shepherd faithfully guarding the door of the 
fold entrusted to you and, with pious solicitude, watching 
over the fold of Christ, and thus deserving that the flock 
of Christ should hear and follow you." 

St. Jerome (a.d. 376). — When the Church of Antioch 
was rent by the rival claims of Vitalis, Meletius, and 



Christ's Vicar 357 

Paulinus to the episcopal throne, St. Jerome wrote thus to 
Pope Damasus for the settlement of the dispute: **I, fol- 
lowing no one as first but Christ, am joined in communion 
with your Blessedness, that is, with the Chair of Peter. 
Upon that rock I know that the Church is 'built. Whosoever 
eats the Lamb outside that house is profane. If one be 
not in the Ark of Noe, he will perish when the flood pre- 
vails. ... I know not Vitalis ; Meletius I reject ; I am a 
stranger to Paulinus. Whosoever gathers not with you, 
scatters; that is, he who is not of Christ is of Antichrist." 

In another letter on the same subject he clearly regards 
communion with the see of Rome as the touchstone of 
orthodoxy. ^^If any one is united with the see of Peter 
he is mine. Meletius, Vitalis, and Paulinus say they adhere 
to you. If only one made the assertion, I could believe him. 
As it is, one or other or all three lie. Hence, I conjure 
your Blessedness . . . that you, who are the successor of 
the apostles in dignity, may be their successor in merit . . . 
and that you would inform me by letter with which bishop 
in Syria I should hold communion." 

St. Peter Chrysologus (died about a.d. 450). — ** Blessed 
Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, gives the 
true faith to those who seek it. For we, in our solicitude 
for truth and faith, can not, without the consent of the 
Roman Church, hear causes of faith.'* 

St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople 
(died A.D. 407). — Theophilus of Alexandria having at- 
tempted to usurp the see of Constantinople, St. Chrysostom 
sent an embassy, composed of four bishops and two deacons, 
to Pope Innocent I, to obtain a redress of his grievances. 
' * Lest, ' ' he says, * ' such great confusion should become gen- 
eral, I beseech you to write to the effect that these irregular 
proceedings, which have been carried on in our absence 
and which were based upon ex parte information, whilst we 
have not declined a trial, are of no effect — as they are, in 
fact, null in themselves — and that the authors of these il- 
legal measures shall he subjected to the penalty prescribed 
by the ecclesiastical laws. ' ' 

The Bishops of Spain (a.d. 440). — **The most blessed 
Peter, the supremacy of whose vicar, as it is eminent, is 
no less to be feared and loved by all. ' ' 

Later centuries than the fifth there is no need of ex- 
ploring for witnesses to the primacy, as all the world ad- 



358 Pope, The 

mits. We have given but specimens of the language and 
practice of Christian antiquity as exhibited by the writings 
of the Fathers of the Church, and have said nothing of the 
abundant proofs of the general recognition of the Roman 
primacy found in the utterances of emperors and of his- 
torians, orators, and poets. 

A circumstance on which we would lay emphasis is that 
the authorities we have quoted regard the prerogative of 
the Popes as identical with the prerogative of St. Peter. 
Now, it is impossible to reconcile this universal belief with 
the alleged struggle of the Popes for supremacy. Why 
struggle when from the beginning their rights were ac- 
knowledged as having a divine source ? 

It has been a common practice with anti-Catholic con- 
troversialists to leave unnoticed the positive and explicit 
testimonies cited by Catholics in favor of the Roman pri- 
macy and confine their attention to a comparatively small 
number of passages in the Fathers which seem, at first 
sight and apart from their context, to tell against the Papal 
claims. But even if the Protestant interpretation of these 
latter passages were correct, what value can these testi- 
monies have when confronted with the cloud of witnesses 
to the Roman primacy, both in the East and in the West, 
whose language concerning the primacy is at least as clear, 
as explicit, and as strong as that which we have cited above ? 

Where shall we find an expression of the Church's mind 
if not in the utterances of the great majority of her rep- 
resentative teachers and in the acts of her general councils ? 
In all cases, however, in which an early authority is cited 
against the Papal primacy, either the circumstances under 
which the words were uttered disprove the Protestant in- 
terpretation of them, or the words cited against the Catho- 
lic position can be matched, from the same authorities, by 
expressions which are clearly pro-Papal. When St. Au- 
gustine, for instance, is quoted as saying that St. Peter, 
when he received the keys, was endowed with no personal 
prerogative, but received them for the whole Church, the 
truth is that St. Augustine is opposing not Papal claims, 
but Novatian error ; for the Novatian heretics held that the 
power to remit sins was a personal and exclusive privilege 
of St. Peter's, which, of course, St. Augustine denied, as 
all Catholics do to-day. An exclusive privilege of the kind 
was never claimed by the Roman pontiffs. 



His Prerogative of InfalWhility 359 

St. Cyprian, who is regarded by Protestants as favoring 
their side of the controversy because of his undoubted oppo- 
sition to the reigning pontiff in the matter of the re-baptism 
of heretics, clearly and explicitly records his belief in the 
Roman primacy in different parts of his writings. Besides 
the quotations from him given above, we shall add here 
the testimony of one of his letters (Ep. Ixviii. 3) to his 
having acknowledged in practice the sovereign jurisdiction 
of the Bishop of Rome. When Marcian of Aries fell into 
heresy, Cyprian, at the request of the bishops of the prov- 
ince, wrote to Pope Stephen to request him ' ' to send letters 
by which, Marcian having heen excommunicated, another 
may he substituted in his place." If this was not an exer- 
cise of sovereign and universal jurisdiction, the terms have 
no meaning. 

Acknowledgment of the Pope's authority was so uni- 
versal and, what is more, was made so often by the bishops 
assembled in general council, that it must be regarded as 
an expression of the mind of the Church. And to suppose 
that the Church was in error on so vital a point, and that, 
too, in the first centuries of its existence, is to suppose that 
the assurances of the Son of God had come to nought. 
The idea, moreover, runs counter to the general conviction 
of Christendom. When, finally, we consider how magnifi- 
cently the ideal of unity which was in the mind of the 
divine Founder of the Church has been realized through 
the exercise of the primacy, we can only conclude that 'Uhis 
is the finger of God." It should now be more difficult to 
imagine that the primacy is an illusion than to regard as 
conclusive the evidence we have adduced in its favor. 

POPE, THE 

III. HIS PREROGATIVE OF INFALLIBILITY 

(To be read after the preceding article on the Pope as 
Vicar of Christ.) 

Objection. — To err is human. All men are sub- 
ject to error, and the Pope is no exception. Is 
not the dogma of Papal infallibility a deification 
of the Pope? 

The Answer. — The strong feeling against Papal infal- 
libility outside the Catholic Church is due in great part 



360 Tope, The 

to lack of correct information about the doctrine. A clear 
and simple explanation of the dogma should be enough to 
remove the antipathy felt toward it on the score of its sup- 
posed unreasonableness. The historical arguments in its 
favor we have virtually given in the article on ''the Pri- 
macy." For the sake of clearness and simplicity, we shall 
cast the discussion into the form of a dialogue between a 
Catholic and a non- Catholic. The latter, we shall sup- 
pose, is an honest inquirer who has already learned much 
from his interlocutor, and is willing to learn more, but, at 
the same time, is frank in setting forth his objections. 

Non-Catholic. — I have been longing to come to the dis- 
cussion of the doctrine of Papal infallibility — although, 
as you must be aware, few Protestants can approach the 
subject in a state of perfect equanimity. The Pope, fallible 
or infallible, is our great bugaboo ; and the climax is reached 
when the Pope is placed on a pinnacle by being declared 
free from human error. 

Catholic. — ^Why, then, are you so eager to take up the 
subject ? 

Non-Catholic. — I have had a taste of it which has whetted ' 
my appetite. The fact is, I have reached a turning-point 
in my thoughts about the Sovereign Pontiff. These few 
weeks past I have been studying the evidences of the Pope 's 
primacy, and now, I must acknowledge, I see the Pope in 
a new light. Though it is still difficult for me to regard 
the Pope simply from the Catholic standpoint, nevertheless, 
after weighing the evidence adduced from Scripture, the 
Fathers, and the early councils, and the arguments aiming 
to prove the necessity of a primacy of authority and the 
actual possession of it by the Popes as the successors of 
St. Peter, it seems to me that I can never again regard the 
Pope as the spiritual usurper that I have always believed 
him to be. At the very least, I am convinced that the Pope 
occupies a very exceptional position among the rulers of 
God's Church. 

Catholic. — I am gratified, of course, to learn that another 
point of Catholic doctrine is being cleared up ; but I must 
remind you that it is possible for a student of early tra- 
dition to get an entirely different impression of the teach- 
ing of the Fathers on the Pope 's position. If you dropped 
into an Anglican or an Evangelical school of divinity, you 
might find the professor of apologetics citing passages from 



His Prerogative of Infallihility 361 

the Fathers to prove that the Pope has not a particle of 
authority more than the other bishops. You are naturally 
surprised at this after seeing the overwhelming mass of 
evidence in favor of the primacy. Yet, it is not, after all, 
so surprising that in so large a mass of writings clever 
minds should find material for bolstering up a case against 
the Papal prerogative. But the attempt is futile in the 
face of the grand array of testimonies on the Catholic side ; 
so impressive by reason of their number, their clearness, 
their emphasis, and, above all, by reason of the highly rep- 
resentative character of those who have rendered them. 
The testimony of a single great council must far outweigh 
a comparatively few citations, which can often be explained 
in a Roman Catholic sense and, no less often, can be 
matched from the very same sources by passages which are 
as ''Romanist" as any Roman Catholic could desire. 

Non-Catholic. — The ''representative character" of many 
witnesses to the primacy does seem to add much weight to 
the argument. But a point I have been wishing to come to 
is that, in seeking proofs of the primacy, I have found a 
good deal that bears on infallibility. In many cases in 
which the supreme headship of the Bishop of Rome was 
spoken of, the inerrancy of his teaching seemed to be either 
expressed or implied. Am I right in this interpretation ? 

Catholic. — Yes, you are perfectly right — the Fathers and 
the councils are clear and emphatic in declaring infallibil- 
ity of teaching to be an element of the primacy. 

Non-Catholic. — And yet, when I began to realize the fact, 
I could not bring myself to believe that the Fathers and 
the councils were teaching the precise doctrine taught by 
the Catholic Church to-day. 

Catholic. — I should like to feel sure that your conception 
of the Catholic teaching of to-day is the right one. 

Non-Catholic. — Well, to save time, I will tell you that 
I have long since unlearned some of the false ideas of in- 
fallibility which, I must confess, are still entertained by 
many of my co-religionists ; such, for instance, as that in- 
fallibility means impeccability — that the Pope can not sin 
— or, in general, that everything the Pope does must be 
right. 

Catholic. — I should certainly have credited you with 
better notions than that. But how would you describe your 
own impression of Papal infallibility? 



362 Pope, The 

Non-Catholic. — I should suppose that what the Catholic 
Church means by infallibility is that when the Pope speaks 
on matters of religion his word is law — he can not be wrong 
and every one must think him right. 

Catholic. — But wouldn't you distinguish? I hope you 
don't suppose that every utterance of the Pope, in public 
or in private, on matters of religion is infallible. 

Non-Catholic. — I have never attempted to analyze my 
impressions about that matter ; but if I had I should prob- 
ably have found myself supposing that a Vicar of Christ 
endowed with infallibility could never on any occasion give 
utterance to erroneous doctrine. 

Catholic. — And that possibly in any private conversation 
he might be dropping infallible remarks at every turn? 

Non-Catholic. — Well, possibly so. You smile. 

Catholic. — Well, we shall clear up that point at a later 
stage of the discussion. Suffice it to say, just here, that 
so far as the Catholic dogma goes the Pope is infallible only 
when he speaks in his public and official character and as 
head of the Church. What objection have you to the head 
of the Church laying down the law in matters of religion 
without any danger of error? 

Non-Catholic. — I should be delighted to know that the 
head of the Church was infallible in his public teachings — 
as I should be delighted to have an infallible guide in any 
department of thought or knowledge — and, as you are 
aware, I have been struck by the historical argument in 
favor of Papal infallibility; but my repugnance comes to 
the surface when I confine my attention to the human de- 
positary of the gift of infallibility. The Pope is, after all, 
a poor mortal like ourselves. Like the rest of us, he has 
his knowledge out of books, and he is not necessarily the 
greatest theologian in the world. Even if he were, it would 
be difficult to see how his teaching would be anything more 
than the expression of his personal opinions. 

Catholic. — But it is not to his personal opinions that in- 
fallibility attaches, hut to his official declarations. 

Non-Catholic. — Ah, but isn't that a distinction without a 
practical difference? The Pope's official declarations, I 
should suppose, are the sincere expression of the Pope's 
own mind; hence, his official declarations have just as 
much or as little value as his personal opinions. 

Catholic. — You have put it very neatly, and if the sub- 



His Prerogative of Infallibility 363 

ject on the tapis were any other than Papal infallibility you 
certainly would have struck home ; but there is a decidedly 
weak point in your argument. Is it not conceivable that 
no matter what be the sources of a man's knowledge, no 
matter how erroneous his private opinions, he may be 
guarded by a special providence from making certain pub- 
lic utterances? The Pope's infallibility means simply this 
(at least, so far as our present controversy is concerned), 
that, whatever be the private views of the Pope, he will 
always be preserved by a special providence from teaching 
error when exercising his functions as head of the universal 
Church. Personally and privately, it is possible for him 
to hold erroneous views on the essentials of the Faith — 
though that would be a very exceptional thing — but a spe- 
cial providence will never permit any such views to enter 
into his public official dogmatic utterances. 

No Christian can doubt that God has it in His power thus 
to preserve His Church from error by means of a special 
divine guardianship over the official pronouncements of 
the one placed at its head. And the one thus guarded is 
not made more than human, and especially is he not deified, 
by any such divine protection. 

Your argument, then, amounts to this : Given a certain 
official declaration of the Pope, it has no more value than 
the personal opinion of which it is an expression ; and per- 
sonal opinion is subject to error. The Catholic position is 
this: Given an erroneous personal opinion of the Pope, 
it will never find an expression in any official declaration 
— in consequence of the action of an overruling providence. 

Non-Catholic. — That, I must admit, throws considerable 
light on the subject. . . . But I must let the matter ma- 
ture in my thoughts before giving full assent. . . . Mean- 
time, I must admit I can see no reason why God could not 
so order things as to prevent the Pope from teaching er- 
roneous doctrine. 

Catholic. — Indeed, to say that He could not would be a 
reflection on His wisdom and His omnipotence. But the 
idea will find easier admittance into your mind if you 
will recollect that God has, as a matter of fact, conferred 
infallibility on certain individual men for the good of 
His Church. Why can He not do the same in the case of 
the one who rules the Church in His name? 

Non-Catholic. — So there are other cases of infallibility? 



364 Pope, The 

I must say I am getting a little jealous in the Pope's behalf. 

Catholic. — You are a Christian, and as such you must 
believe that the twelve apostles were infallible in their pub- 
lic teaching, as they had a special promise of the assistance 
of the Holy Ghost. The same is true of the four evangelists 
in their written message to the Church. 

Non-Catholic. — That's an idea which I have never had 
brought home to me, especially in connection with Papal 
infallibility. . . . The apostles and evangelists were cer- 
tainly infallible in their message to the Church of God. . . . 
But am I to understand that the Pope is endowed with the 
same high gifts and graces as the apostles and evangelists ? 

Catholic. — Not precisely, or, at least, not necessarily. In 
the case of the Pope, so far as we know, it is simply a case 
of a special providence guarding the public and official ut- 
terances of the head of the Church. It is not a matter of 
personal inspiration. The Pope hears no voice from on 
high telling him that the decision he is about to render is 
God's own truth. Nor is it a matter of miraculous inter- 
vention of any kind. It is simply a case of an overruling 
providence. 

Non-Catholic. — I must say, the question is considerably 
cleared up. ... At the very least, you have supplied me 
with matter for profound reflection. It takes a little time 
to assimilate a new idea of the kind. . . . But I must 
admit that it all seems very reasonable. There is noth- 
ing God-like implied in the prerogative of the Sovereign 
Pontiff. All seems very human on the side of the human 
agency employed by Providence. But, now, there are some 
points in detail I should like to have cleared up; and, I 
must confess, my curiosity is more excited here than it was 
in reference to the main point. I should like to learn more 
precisely when, how often, and under what circumstances 
the gift of infallibility is brought into exercise. What, more 
precisely, are the limits of infallibility? And how can 
we distinguish between a fallible and an infallible utterance 
of the Pope? As to these last questions, you have placed 
particular emphasis on such expressions as ''public" and 
"official" as qualifying Papal declarations to which infal- 
libility is attached. 

Catholic. — I have used these expressions only provision- 
ally. They are correct except for some limitation and 



His Prerogative of Infallihility 365 

greater precision which are given them by the Vatican de- 
cree, which I shall point out to you presently. 

Non-Catholic. — The first thing I am eager to learn is 
whether infallible pronouncements are of frequent occur- 
rence. 

Catholic. — I expected the question. You seem not averse 
to admitting the dogma of infallibility, but, like many an- 
other inquirer, you feel a jealousy of too frequent an in- 
vasion of human liberty, even under the action of a special 
providence. Now, I am not going to ask you to be of the 
temper of Doctor Ward, the famous Oxford convert of 
some years back, who declared he should be delighted to 
find an infallible Papal decree laid upon his breakfast- 
table with his newspaper every morning of his life. On 
the other hand, I should be sorry to see you take up the 
attitude of a number — an exceedingly small number — even 
of the Pope's subjects, who are fidgety at the thought of 
important Papal pronouncements of any kind. 

In the whole history of the Church infallible decrees have 
doubtless been of frequent occurrence — though here there 
can be no question of statistics. The See of Rome has been 
the guiding star of the Church these nineteen centuries. 
Catholics have received its decisions without inquiring nar- 
rowly into the limits of their infallibility. When neces- 
sary or expedient, the certainty of infallibility can be as- 
sured by a clear and distinct declaration. In the general 
course of Papal government the Pope employs the aid of 
those standing committees of cardinals known as congrega- 
tions. The decisions of these bodies are frequent enough; 
but, even if they be issued with the Pope's approval, they 
are not infallible. They may be reversed, though such is 
the maturity of the cardinals' deliberations [you have 
heard the saying that Rome moves slowly], and such the 
wisdom of their decisions, that it is the rarest thing in the 
world for any of their rulings to need reversal. But oc- 
casions will occur when the Pope feels impelled to issue, 
in virtue of his sovereign authority, a document which, from 
its terms or its drift, must be deemed infallible and irre- 
versible. These may be said to be of comparatively rare 
occurrence. 

Non-Catholic. — That, I must say, does bring some relief 
to my Protestant susceptibilities. Nevertheless, I must ad- 



366 Pope, The 

mit that as I am now more than half a Catholic, as regards 
infallibility, the fact that I need such comfort may be no 
great credit to me. I wonder if I shall ever fall into 
"Ward 's breakfast-table cravings. But I see you have there 
what I suppose is the Vatican decree on the infallibility of 
the Pope. 

Catholic. — The decree bearing on infallibility is part of 
a long constitution (Constit. Dogmat. I de Ecclesia Christi). 
I shall translate it almost verbatim, on paper, and at the 
same time number off certain clauses by way of giving 
prominence to the conditions under which the Pope is de- 
clared to be infallible in his teaching. The words are 
these : 

''Therefore, adhering to the tradition received from the 
beginnings of the Christian faith, for the glory of God 
our Saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and 
the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approval of 
the sacred council, We teach, and define as a divinely re- 
vealed dogma, that the Roman Pontiff, (1) when he speaks 
ex cathedra, that is, when, in the discharge of his office of 
pastor and teacher of all Christians, (2) he defines, (3) 
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, (4) a doctrine 
relating to faith or morals, (5) as one to "be held hy the 
universal Church, he possesses, by virtue of the divine as- 
sistance promised to him in the person of blessed Peter, 
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed that 
His Church should possess in defining doctrine concern- 
ing faith or morals.' ' 

The first thing to be noted about the decree is that it 
is only when the Pope speaks ex cathedra that he is de- 
clared to be infallible. The literal meaning of ^'ex cathe- 
dra" is ''from his chair of office." The theological mean- 
ing of the phrase is set forth with the greatest exactness 
by the council. The Pope is infallible when he speaks "in 
virtue of his supreme apostolic authority" and "when in 
discharge of his office of pastor and teacher of all Chris- 
tians" he defines a doctrine and sends it forth as one to 
be held by the whole Church. These conditions are impor- 
tant, as they limit the range of infallible teaching. A 
Papal utterance may be more or less public, but that does 
not necessarily stamp it as infallible. It is only when the 
Pope evidently wishes to exercise his apostolic authority 
as head of the Church and to define a doctrine to be held 



His Prerogative of Infallihility 367 

as so defined by the whole Church that he is declared to be 
infallible. 

Note, in the second place, that it is only in defining doc- 
trine that the Pope is pronounced infallible, and not, there- 
fore, in matters of external discipline or administration. 
Moreover, it must be doctrine bearing on faith or on 
morals. The world need fear no exploiting of the Pope's 
prerogative in the domain of politics, or of science, or of 
history. Interference in these matters does not belong to 
the Pope's province as head of the Church, except in so 
far as they have bearings on faith or morals. The word 
''defining" is not used here in the ordinary English sense 
of the word, as equivalent to "giving the meaning of," 
but in the sense of declaring explicitly and authorita- 
tively. 

All doctrines taught infallibly have been implicitly con- 
tained in the original deposit of the Faith; all, with per- 
haps no exception, have been explicitly held and acted upon 
by large portions of the Church; some, like the doctrine 
of the infallibility of the Pope, have been implied and em- 
bodied in the practice of the universal Church from the 
beginning; and yet the time had not come for their ex- 
plicit and definitive declaration; but when a pressing, or 
at least a suitable, occasion has occurred, the true status 
of such doctrines has been clearly set forth by the Sov- 
ereign Pontiff. It is clear, then, that in the exercise of 
this prerogative there is no springing of new ideas on the 
Church — no ''manufacturing" of dogmas out of the whole 
cloth. 

As to the "divine assistance" enjoyed by the Pontiff, 
in virtue of the promise made to him in the person of St. 
Peter, neither the English expression nor the Latin orig- 
inal implies any special or personal inspiration or any kind 
of miraculous intervention. It is a matter of special divine 
guardianship over the dogmatic utterances of the head of 
the Church. 

The Vatican decree exhibits one of the special ways in 
which Providence has guided the destinies of the Church 
as the custodian of revealed truth. The Church of Christ 
is infallible in its teaching; otherwise, it would not be 
worthy of its name. Christ has commanded us to hear it 
and has promised it the Spirit of truth, and hence it can 
teach no error. But it must teach as a unit, and hence it 



368 Pope, The 

must have a principle of unity. There must be a standard 
of right doctrine to which the whole world may appeal. 
That such a standard of truth has been preserved in the 
See of Rome has been the belief of the Church from the 
beginning, and the belief has been embodied in acts of the 
most vital consequence to the Church. 

God might have ordered things differently. By a great 
miracle He might have preserved the Faith by the simple 
transmission of revealed truths from one Christian to an- 
other ; or He might have confirmed in the Faith all bishops 
in succeeding ages, as He had done in the case of the 
apostles, and thus have made each bishop a virtual Pope 
(in that case, there would be no need of general councils 
as regards matters dogmatic) ; or He might have ordained 
that a general assembly of the bishops should be the ulti- 
mate referee in all matters of faith and morals. In this 
last case, if the Pope were eliminated, another miracle 
would be needed to make such a body of bishops effective 
without a head. If a presiding officer were chosen, it is 
impossible that his rulings, or his decisions, or his casting- 
vote, should not, directly or indirectly, affect the decrees 
of the assembly in matters of faith and morals — and thus 
he would be virtually Pope. And who but a sovereign 
pontiff, universally recognized as such, would be competent 
to determine the conditions under which the decisions of 
such an assembly would be infallible? Who, for instance, 
could decide what degree of unanimity was necessary to 
stamp a decree as final and infallible? As a matter of 
fact, the Church's councils have never been troubled by 
questions like these, because there never was a time when 
the presidency, the decisions, and the consent of the Bishop 
of bishops were not considered as putting the seal of apos- 
tolical sanction upon the acts of the council. 

General councils, with the Pope or his delegate at their 
head, have been great instruments for good in the hands of 
Providence, but a council is an instrument that can not 
always be brought to bear upon situations fraught with 
danger to faith or morals. During the era of persecution 
in the early Church, an interval of nearly three centuries 
elapsed between the founding of the Church and the first 
ecumenical council, held at Nicsea in 325. During the forty- 
three years that have passed since the Vatican Council was 
obliged to discontinue its sittings, a most baneful heresy 



Pragmatism 369 

has arisen ; but during this and all such periods, the flock 
of Christ has not been without its shepherd. 

God has not chosen the way of the miraculous for the 
preservation of the faith of His Church ; He has appointed 
a visible head, the successor of Peter, to whom He has 
vouchsafed a special assistance to enable him to guide the 
Church aright. Under the direction of this special provi- 
dence, the Vicar of Christ employs every possible human 
means to ascertain the truth. Aided by his high position, 
and by the combined learning of Christendom, he is en- 
abled to take up the threads of tradition and weave them 
into the contipuous strand of apostolic teaching. All seems 
very human when we confine our gaze to the work of 
the human instrument employed by Providence, but faith 
reveals the presence of the guiding hand. 

Non-Catholic. — During this exposition of the Catholic 
doctrine, which you have had the kindness to develop for 
me, the idea has been gradually growing in my mind that 
the divine character of the Church and its consequent per- 
fection are, perhaps, by nothing better illustrated than by 
the doctrine of the Papal primacy and infallibility. I am 
now forming a conception of a Church which never dawned 
upon my mind before. The divine conserving element in 
the Church is taking the place in my thoughts of that idea 
of a church which made of it no more than an assembly of 
minds more or less in agreement about certain truths — 
minds relying, it may be, on the personal guidance of the 
Holy Spirit, and yet ever tending to follow the most 
divergent paths. 

Papal infallibility, I must acknowledge, has captured my 
intellect; maybe it will soon have my heart; though, per- 
haps, I shall always be at a little distance from Dr. Ward's 
enthusiasm for Papal decrees. 



PRAGMATISM 

An Old System Revamped. — Truth is neither 
absolute nor eternal. The truth of a proposition 
is to be tested by the effects it produces on the 
mind that considers or accepts it — and in gen- 
eral by its influence on life. If it brings about 
a readjustment of one's ideas, or changes a men- 



370 Pragmatism 

tal attitude, or awakens a new motive of conduct, 
it has just that amount of truth. The truth of 
an idea is to be tested by how it works. 

A Comment on It. — ' ' How does it work ? " is a very apt 
question in the practical sphere, and in reference to things 
that are made to work and have no reason for existing if 
they do not work; but in the sphere of abstract knowl- 
edge quite a different query is in order. "Is it trice f and, 
if it is true, what is the evidence of its truth ? ' ' What we 
want to know is whether the thing affirmed is reality or 
fiction, and, if reality, on what grounds can we accept it 
as reality. 

Once the truth is evident, it is regarded as one of the 
mind's permanent acquisitions. It is a fixture in the mind, 
and is not regarded as an idea held only provisionally, as 
is the case with an unproved theory. Its reception by the 
mind constitutes knowledge — pure, unconditioned knowl- 
edge. In every-day language, it is the simple truth — which 
is another way of saying that it is absolute truth. 

All this may seem to be too well known to need stating ; 
but in pragmatism we are confronted with a system of 
thought that repudiates all absolute truth. A pragmatist 
regards nothing as the simple truth. No conclusion, no 
matter how well demonstrated, contains any reality of such 
an absolute nature that one can say, ''This is the simple 
truth about the matter; here my mind can rest contented; 
my absolute knowledge is enriched forever by a new con- 
quest." No, with the pragmatist it is a matter of ever 
learning, never knowing. His vagrant mind travels on 
from one experience to another, each new experience ad- 
justing itself as best it can to the old experiences, or 
modifying them, or altogether dislodging them from the 
mind, but never presenting or evolving an image of abso- 
lute truth in the concrete. Logical demonstrations, re- 
ceived axioms, first principles — these he regards as relics 
of the mental childhood of the race. They lead to no 
knowledge and their results are but makeshifts for 
knowledge. 

But, have pragmatists at least any hope of getting at 
absolute truth? It is hard to say, but to judge by their 
very notion of truth and by their criterion of truth, if 
they ever did stumble on any truth they would never be 



Pragmatism 371 

aware of the fact. Logically, as we shall see, they would 
have no right to declare any proposition true. 

We are not aware that any pragmatist has given a 
formal definition of truth (it is difficult to see how he 
could), but some sort of foggy notion of truth may be dis- 
engaged from their enunciation and explanation of the 
criterion of truth. What do they regard as the criterion 
of truth? The formula, ''A thing is true if it works well," I 
if rightly understood, interprets the pragmatist mind on 
the subject. But let us endeavor to understand it. "Works 
well ' ' — what is the pragmatist meaning of the phrase ? Can 
any truth be said to work at all? In a certain sense, yes. 
It can influence one's thoughts or feelings. It can thus 
revolutionize a man's whole life. If the truth that there 
is an infinite and eternal God enters an atheist's mind, it 
may transform him, morally and intellectually, into an- 
other being and affect his existence for eternity. The 
truth that man has a spiritual soul, essentially differing 
from the life-principle in a brute, may suggest, or more 
than suggest, the idea of immortality, and thus a new vista 
may be opened up to the mind. In these and in many other 
ways ideas and truths *'work." 

The criterion is not, then, to be interpreted in any nar- 
rowly practical sense, as though it implied that a truth was 
to be considered such because it had a good practical bear- 
ing on the necessities or the conveniences or the pleasures 
of life. No, what the pragmatist means is this: Does it 
make any difference whatever to human thought or life 
whether a certain idea is true or not? Does it give one a 
new outlook on life, or a new point of departure in one's 
speculations, or a new working hypothesis? If it does, it 
has so much truth. A vague expression this, but it sat- 
isfies the pragmatist. 

It must be at once evident to the reader that even a 
false idea entering a mind may make a great "difference" 
in the adjustment of thought and conduct, and hence that 
the criterion is useless for distinguishing the true from>^ 
the false. A false notion of deity has made a great "dif- 
ference" in pagan times and countries. A pious Greek or 
Roman adjusted his thoughts and behavior by his ideas 
concerning the gods, whom he thought himself obliged to 
propitiate. 

The reader who is made acquainted for the first time 



372 Pragmatism 



art 



with the pragmatist criterion of truth will, doubtless, open 
his eyes in astonishment. **Does not all this imply an 
arbitrary dealing with the word 'truth'?" he will ask. 
Quite so, is our answer; nothing could be more arbitrary; 
the term is retained, but the old meaning thrown away. A 
criterion of truth which, in a given instance only shows 
that an idea has worked out some result, is a criterion 
neither of truth nor of anything else. What it points to 
is not truth, which the human race has always regarded as 
something fixed and always itself, but a changed, and 
changeable, attitude of thought or feeling. 

The fact of the matter is that pragmatists despair of 
arriving at real truth by the methods hitherto in vogue. 
Logic they discard; reasoning they consider a pitfall. 
They are content, or resigned, to jog along the road of 
life with what intellectual satisfaction they may. When 
a new idea is presented to their minds it encounters a 
mass of ideas, or experiences, as they term them, already 
in possession, and they find some satisfaction in provision- 
ally dovetailing the new experience with the old ones; but 
truth — in the sense in which most men have conceived it — 
well, that may or may not one day dawn on their intelli- 
gence after a long series of mental adjustments. 

We have already hinted at the refutation of the sys- 
tem, and little more is needed. Pragmatists do not pretend 
to demonstrate their position. If they did, the fact would 
be a strange comment on the value they set upon demon- 
strations in general. They can only hope that pragmatism 
will here and there light upon minds that experience the 
same chaos of thought as their own and coax them along 
the rough highway of speculation from one stopping-place 
to another. 

Pragmatism may seem to be a new phenomenon in the 
world of thought, but it is little more than a revival of 
old forms of skepticism which the world has discarded again 
and again. Twenty-four centuries ago Protagoras, the first 
of the sophists, talked much in the same vein as James and 
Schiller and Dewey in our day, on the nature and tests of 
truth, and, doubtless, just as cleverly. Truth, in his eyes, 
had no objective existence. Man, as he expressed it, was 
the measure of all things; and an idea was true because 
it found a place in some individual mind and managed 
to adjust itself in some fashion to the mind's previous ex- 



Pragmatism 373 

periences. Two men might differ, but both had the tnith ! 

But in those early days, fortunately, and indeed provi- 
dentially, a genius appeared on the scene who succeeded 
in unraveling the tangled skein of human thought. Socrates 
taught men how to think to some purpose, first by clearing 
up their concepts of things, and then by showing them 
how to link their concepts together in processes of reason- 
ing, applying, at the same time, his rules for correct think- 
ing to specific questions, as occasions occurred. 

Now, in this connection, the saying that history repeats 
itself is strikingly illustrated. The dialectic of Socrates, 
which cleared away the mists of ancient sophistry, led, 
more or less directly, to the founding of a system of philos- 
ophy which, purged of its errors and more fully developed, 
is the very system of philosophy which is recommended and 
prescribed as an antidote against the errors of our day by 
the illustrious pontiff Pope Leo XIII, and his no less 
illustrious successor, Pope Pius X. The peripatetic, or 
scholastic, philosophy, which has been held in such honor 
in the Catholic Church, is to-day the only safeguard, except 
revelation, against the rampant errors of the times. 

Minus the subtleties and the (relatively) unnecessary 
questions discussed in a past age, the scholastic philosophy 
is the system taught at the end of the undergraduate course 
in Catholic colleges; and we who are familiar with the 
life of the colleges, and have followed the careers of many 
students after their graduation, are confident that no stu- 
dent of philosophy, either during his studies or long years 
after, has not felt reason for congratulating himself on the 
intellectual training he received in the study of scholastic 
philosophy. And this is true not only in the case of 
thoroughly Catholic minds, but no less in the ease of non- 
Catholics who have been permitted to follow the course. 
There is a moral in this for Christian parents who care 
in the least to save their children from the pragmatism 
and the atheism that now hold sway in so many non- 
Catholic colleges and universities. 



374 Prayer and Nature's Laws 

PRAYER AND NATURE'S LAWS 

Objections. — "i. The hearing of prayers for 
temporal blessings would be an interference with 
natural laws, which science demonstrates is im- 
possible. 2. The hearing of such prayers would 
involve a miracle ; but it is preposterous to sup- 
pose that God works a miracle every time He 
grants a temporal favor." — Professor Tyndall. 

The Answer. — Prayer, nature, and science are in per- 
fect accord ; but, unfortunately, certain scientists happen 
to know more about science than about prayer, and yet 
talk with equal confidence about the two. They tell us 
that if we pray for a temporal good — for instance, recov- 
ery from illness, an abundant harvest, the averting of a 
pestilence — we ask that nature's laws be interfered with; 
and yet the operation of nature's laws is unchangeable, as 
science demonstrates. Pestilences and bad harvests will 
come if the causes that produce such things have been set 
in motion. 

Such is the position of a certain number of scientists who 
are not necessarily atheists or agnostics. Now this dictum, 
which is often loudly asserted and which has an air of 
plausibility to the half -educated, has not the smallest foot- 
hold in true science. There is no denying, of course, that 
in the ordinary and natural course of things, certain causes 
must produce certain effects. A certain condition of the 
atmosphere must bring on a shower of rain; certain con- 
ditions of the human system must result in disease. This 
is true; but the scientific critic should reflect that it may 
be no less true that the natural order is subject to control 
from a higher order. 

Just as in the political world a municipality may have 
its laws and yet be subject to a suspension of its laws by a 
higher authority in the State, so the world of natural phe- 
nomena is subject to control at the hands of its Creator. 
The existence of a power above nature, or of a supernatu- 
ral order, may be denied, but the denial would not be dic- 
tated by physical science, or by true science of any sort. 
Physical science has to do with the world of natural phe- 
nomena. What lies beyond the confines of nature must be 
left to the student of rational philosophy and revealed re- 



Prayer and Nature's Laws 375 

ligion. But just here we are only concerned with main- 
taining that if a supernatural order is possible, it is not 
irrational to suppose that the natural order is subject to 
its control. 

And yet there is no absolute necessity of supposing that, 
as a matter of fact, when God hears such prayers, He 
strictly interferes with the laws of nature. Granted the 
existence of an omnipotent God, the Author and Preserver 
of nature, it is rational to suppose that, even without in- 
terfering with natural laws, He can direct their operations 
to the accomplishing of His designs. If even a finite being 
can direct the action of a piece of mechanism invented by 
himself, God can do as much with the forces of nature. 
To suppose that an infinite Intelligence can not use for 
its own purposes a thing of its own creating is manifestly 
absurd. The further question as to how God directs the 
forces of nature need not concern us, except as a matter 
of theological speculation or as bearing on modes of an- 
swering objections. 

But the objector is to the fore, and the question of the 
how calls for a solution. The criticism of Professor Tyn- 
dall on the practice of praying for temporal benefits of the 
kind we have instanced has been re-echoed by many who 
have even less justification for their criticism than the 
professor himself. Tyndall labored to prove that the hear- 
ing of a prayer for the averting of a temporal evil — say, for 
the warding off of a hurricane or a pestilence — would in- 
volve a miracle, and, whatever might be said about the pos- 
sibility of miracles, the working of a miracle in so many 
cases can not be admitted by any reflecting Catholics. 
Catholics, he tells us, frequently pray for such favors, and 
yet seem to be unaware that they are asking for the mirac- 
ulous. They have a vague notion that, somehow or other, 
God will arrange events according to their wishes. He 
gives two typical instances of such simple and unreasoning 
trust. The first is that of a young priest whom he meets 
at the foot of the Rhone Glacier, and who is about to per- 
form an annual ceremony of blessing the mountain. The 
second is that of a Tyrolese priest, who, when he feared 
the bursting of a glacier-dam, offered the sacrifice of the 
Mass as a means of averting the calamity. Both priests, he 
urges, were asking for a miracle, and it must be absurd to 
suppose that sucli miracles would be granted. 



376 Prayer and Nature's Laws 

The professor's criticisms may be briefly answered, and 
in a way regarded with favor in the schools of theology. 
There is no necessity of invoking the miraculous in ex- 
plaining the effect of such prayers. An easier explana- 
tion is found in God's foreknowledge and providence. Be- 
fore the creation of the world, God's perfect knowledge 
of the future enabled Him to foresee that certain prayers 
would be offered for temporal blessings or for the avert- 
ing of temporal evils, and His infinite wisdom and power 
enabled Him to order events accordingly. Natural causes 
would produce their natural effects in due course, but God 's 
wisdom enabled Him to predetermine the action of those 
causes from the beginning, so that events would occur when 
needed as answers to prayers. Supposing, then, that in the 
year of grace in which Professor Tyndall was making his 
reflections in the Alps, a calamity was impending which 
either of those priests sought to avert by their prayers: 
nature's course would remain undisturbed, and yet the 
calamity would be prevented, in consequence of the ini- 
tial direction given to nature's forces by their Creator. 

We can not, of course, know whether such is the actual 
way in which God hears such prayers ; but it is a possible 
way, and that should be enough to satisfy science. 

It was Professor Tyndall who once seriously proposed an 
experiment by which to test the efficacy of prayers for the 
sick. He suggested that a number of patients suffering 
from some disease well known to the medical profession 
should be segregated in an hospital conducted after the 
best modern methods and confining its treatment to that 
particular disease, and that then the prayers of all Christen- 
dom (at least, so far as they could be commanded by some 
central authority, as, for instance, the Pope's) should be 
concentrated upon that one hospital. After a certain num- 
ber of years statistics of recoveries in that hospital might 
be compared with statistics for the same disease in other 
hospitals or in the same hospital at an earlier period. 

The proposal must have seemed amusing to those who 
knew anything of the spirit of Christian prayer. Chris- 
tians do not regard the effects of prayer as capable of 
being weighed, or measured, or exhibited statistically. We 
have no gauge in this life whereby to determine the exact 
extent to which our prayers are heard, whether we pray 
for temporal or for spiritual favors. That we are helped 



Property 377 

by prayer we can not doubt, as our prayers are offered 
in obedience to the divine will. Nevertheless, the mathe- 
matics of the divine dispensation are quite beyond our 
powers. 

Then, as regards purely mundane blessings, we pray for 
them always with at least the tacit proviso that the grant- 
ing of the petition will be for God's glory and the good 
of souls. In some cases the purposes of Providence are 
better served by God's withholding a temporal favor than 
by His granting it. Prayers are often said for health, 
and health is not granted. The whole of Catholic Christen- 
dom has frequently been on its knees praying for the 
recovery of a beloved pontiff, and yet he has died. In 
one sense, we may trust, the prayer was heard, whilst in 
another it was not. It was not heard inasmuch as the 
pontiff was not spared; but it was heard inasmuch as it 
contributed to the spiritual and eternal welfare of the 
one for whom it was offered. Tyndall's proposed hospital 
might, possibly, have no better showing than other hos- 
pitals, for the reason that the ultimate benevolent designs 
of Providence in regard to the patients, or others, might 
be served better by sickness than by health. Christian con- 
fidence in prayer is nurtured much more by faith and 
hope than by any sensible effects following the act of peti- 
tion; though, at the same time, it is no less true that in 
many cases God vouchsafes to the soul a certain moral 
assurance that the petition has been heard. 

PRIMACY OF THE POPE 

See '*Pope, The. II— Christ's Vicar." 

PROPERTY 

Erroneous View. — "Private ownership is rob- 
bery." — Proudhon. 

The Truth. — A bold statement, this — made by com- 
munists and socialists — implying, as it does, that all the 
world is in possession of ill-gotten goods. 

But whom have the holders of property robbed? Some 
one must have owned it originally — otherwise it could not 
have been stolen. Were the original owners single indi- 



378 Property 

viduals, each with his own share? In that case, there was 
private ownership before the supposed robbery, which the 
opponents of private ownership can not admit. The orig- 
inal ownership of property must, therefore, have apper- 
tained in some way to the entire human race; and we 
naturally inquire in what sense and under what conditions 
could the ownership of the earth and its productions have 
been vested in the human race. 

The more we inquire the more are we convinced that 
there was no general ownership excluding private and in- 
dividual proprietorship, and that individual ownership was 
the natural, the primitive and, in the beginning, the nor- 
mal form of ownership, and that by the following argu- 
ments : 

Man was either created by a sovereign God or was in 
some way a product of the elements. The latter alterna- 
tive is usually accepted by leading communists and social- 
ists, who account for man's origin by supposing — though 
never proving — that man was evolved out of some lower 
form of life, and ultimately out of the slime of the earth. 
Now, if the human race was created, its right to the pos- 
session of the earth must have depended on the will of the 
Creator. Did the Creator, as a matter of fact, make over 
the earth and all it contains to the whole human race? 
On this point the unbelieving philosopher or economist 
can give us no information. The only direct indication of 
God's will in this matter is furnished by revelation. The 
Book of Genesis tells us (i. 28) that God said to the first 
representatives of the race: ''Increase and multiply, and 
fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of 
the sea and the fowls of the air, etc.," and that He said 
to Noe and his sons, "Increase and multiply, and fill the 
earth, etc." (ix. 1). 

Now it is impossible to read either communism or so- 
cialism into the passages of Scripture just quoted. The 
earth, with all that it contained, was indeed given to the 
human race, but not necessarily to the race in its cor- 
porate capacity, to the exclusion of private and independ- 
ent ownership. A thing given to a multitude of men need 
not be given in such a way as to constitute the multitude in 
its collective capacity the owner of the thing given. It 
may be given with the intention that each member of the 
multitude shall appropriate a share of the thing given, 



Property 379 

according to his needs or according to his good pleasure. 
A rich man who makes a present of a case of shoes to 
a shoeless crowd would not think his benevolent intentions 
frustrated if each man in the crowd carried off the pair 
of shoes that fitted his feet. So, too, when God commanded 
the human race to take possession of the earth, the design 
of God could be amply fulfilled if each one, according to 
his needs and his opportunities, took possession of a por- 
tion of the earth and used it for his needs; and there is 
nothing in the texts quoted indicating that God wished to 
establish any other order of things. We should thus have 
private ownership based on priority of occupation, a title 
which has held good ever since. 

That such was the actual intention of the Almighty may 
be safely concluded from the fact that both public order 
and individual prosperity required that the individual man 
should have what he could strictly and legally call his own. 
Personal responsibility is an element of social order, and 
personal responsibility is a necessary accompaniment of 
personal ownership. The possessing and the hope of pos- 
sessing private property give a stimulus to human activi- 
ties and a scope to the practice of certain virtues which 
would be lacking if all things were possessed in common. 
Moreover, the utterly impracticable character of any com- 
munistic order of things would have revealed itself in pro- 
portion as the human race spread itself over the face of 
the earth and when corporate ownership by the entire race 
would be no more than a name. 

But the most direct proof that it was God's intention 
that men should have individual possession of this world's 
goods is furnished by the divine laws by which private 
ownership was recognized and protected. ''Thou shalt not 
steaV — ''Cursed he he that removeth his neighbor's land- 
marks" — these are well-known samples of the divine legis- 
lation protecting the property of individuals. Nay, even 
the coveting of one's neighbor's goods, to say nothing of 
the appropriating of them, was forbidden by divine law. 

Even if we admitted the theory — which we can not, of 
course, as Christians — that man was not created, but was 
evolved out of some lower form of animal life, that of the ape, 
for instance — in that case, there could be no question of right 
or wrong in the matter of ownership, and robbery would 
be a word without a meaning. But, waiving that point 



380 Purgatory 

for the present, and supposing that man was developed out 
of the ape, the dawn of reason would not have been a sud- 
den occurrence ; it would have taken place only very grad- 
ually ; nor would all men have ripened into rational beings 
at the same time. Some would have reached the verge of 
reason, when others would be left far behind. The first 
in the race — that is to say, the first to acquire a bit of in- 
telligence — would have asserted his superiority over his 
less fortunate brethren who were still in the animal state 
and would have seized the choicest morsels at nature 's well- 
furnished table; but here, again, we should have private 
ownership before the great robbery. 

So, it appears, no case has been made out against private 
ownership. If private ownership is robbery the robbery 
must have been committed against private ownership whose 
title was perfectly valid — and this, on the face of it, is 
absurd. 



PROTESTANTISM 

See *' Reformation, The." 

PURGATORY 

Protestant View. — The doctrine of purgatory 
is not scriptural, nor does reason find sufficient 
grounds for accepting it. 

Catholic Teaching. — The doctrine of purgatory is so 
reasonable that many Protestants in our day have been 
obliged to face about and admit the existence of a * ' middle 
state," as they term it, a state in which are detained souls 
whose condition bars their immediate admission to heaven. 
The ' * middle state ' ' does not precisely tally with our purga- 
tory, but the doctrine is supported by arguments similar to 
those advanced in favor of purgatory. Very few of our 
separated brethren who reject and even deride the notion 
of purgatory can have given any very serious consideration 
to the grounds on which the Catholic doctrine rests. And 
yet very little consideration should sufiice to show that the 
doctrine is both rational and scriptural. 

According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the 



Purgatory 381 

eternal lot of each one who departs from this life will be 
either the enjoyment of unspeakable happiness in the posses- 
sion of God, or banishment from God and unspeakable 
misery. It will be either heaven or hell. The latter fate 
will immediately overtake those who die with their souls 
stained with grievous sin and are consequently in a state of 
enmity with God. Those who die free from grievous sins 
and in the possession of sanctifying grace, whereby they 
are made friends of God, will have for their portion the 
eternal joys of heaven. But an immediate entrance into 
heaven, an immediate participation of God's beatitude in 
the visible presence of the all-holy God Himself is impos- 
sible except for those who are entirely clean of heart and 
free from the slightest stain. So great is the holiness and 
purity of God that nothing in the least degree defiled can 
stand in His presence. ''There shall not enter into it 
[heaven] anything defiled " (Apoc. xxi. 27). ''Thy eyes 
are too pure to behold evil" (Hab. i. 13). Now, there are 
souls whose sins are not so great as to have deserved eternal 
punishment; and yet by reason of lesser defilement those 
souls are unfit to enter the presence of God. How are these 
souls to fare? They must be pure as the driven snow be- 
fore entering heaven. Therefore they must previously pass 
through a state of purification, which is purgatory. 

This argument, it is plain, is based upon the distinction 
between slight and grievous transgressions. Keason must 
acknowledge such a distinction, and it is borne out by Scrip- 
ture. "In many things we all offend," says St. James 
(iii. 2). But "all" must include not only the wicked but 
also the just, and the sins of the just must be comparatively 
slight. Now if one who dies in the state of grace has not 
repented of all such venial offenses, his sins are not so 
grave as to exclude him from eternal happiness, and yet he 
can not carry the guilt of them into the presence of God. 
Sin and infinite holiness can not be such close companions 
for one moment, much less for eternity. Hence the sinner 
will be excluded from heaven till he repents of all his 
offenses. 

But, it may be asked, can not the divine mercy cancel the 
guilt — or, in other words, justify the soul by the infusion 
of grace? Undoubtedly it can, but on condition of repent- 
ance. Now repentance is a free act; it implies a change 
pf disposition in the will ; and once the will is duly repent- 



382 Purgatory 

ant and turns to God, then the grace of justification is in- 
fused. If, therefore, a man pass out of this life with the 
guilt of lesser offenses on his soul he must repent before 
entering heaven. 

The need of repentance supposes a state of guilt, and 
not merely the fact of having sinned. If one sins and is 
not sorry for his sin his will remains infected with the guilt 
of his sin, and it is only by a free act of his will that he 
can rid himself of the infection. This change of will must 
take place either here or hereafter ; if hereafter, then surely 
in purgatory. The need of purgatory for uncanceled guilt 
is especially evident in the case of confirmed habits of sin. 
Let us suppose that a man dies who has been justly re- 
garded as a good Christian. With all his virtues, however, 
he is not free from defects. Perhaps, as the French put it, 
he has the defects of his virtues. He has a tinge of spiritual 
pride, and is consequently harsh in his judgments about 
others. Or perhaps, living in easy circumstances, he is 
immoderate in his pleasures. Repentance must be brought 
to bear upon these dispositions, either here or hereafter; 
and the greater the force of habit the deeper the repentance 
required. The approach of death may or may not have 
brought him to a realization of his defects, but before he 
sees God he must be pure and stainless. Purgatory must 
do the work of cleansing which was left undone in this life. 

But repentance for sin is not the only condition for rec- 
onciliation with God; satisfaction must he rendered, even 
for sin of which the guilt has been remitted. That pardon 
does not necessarily cancel all one's indebtedness to God 
and that satisfaction may have to be rendered even after 
pardon, should be clear to any one who knows God's ways 
of dealing with offenders under the Old Law. Adam was 
forgiven his sin, but nevertheless he was obliged henceforth 
to eat his bread in the sweat of his face. Moses was par- 
doned for his want of trust in the Almighty, but he was 
excluded on account of his sin from the land of promise. 
David was forgiven his double crime of adultery and mur- 
der, but in consequence of it he was obliged to suffer many 
tribulations. The idea of rendering satisfaction for sin 
committed is familiar to the history, the literature and the 
practice of religion under the Old and New Testaments. 

God is merciful, and He turns not away from the sinner 
when the sinner turns to Him in a repentant spirit ; but it 



Purgatory 383 

is His very mercy that prompts Him to bring home to the 
sinner the gravity of his sin ; for sin is not only an offense 
against the Divine Majesty but at the same time the greatest 
evil that can befall the human soul. 

That God is rigorous in exacting satisfaction for sin we 
may gather from the words of Our Lord reported by St. 
Matthew (v. 25, 26). "Be at agreement with thy adversary 
betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him ; lest perhaps 
the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge 
deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. 
Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till 
thou repay the last farthing." 

And yet, how many can be said to have made full and 
complete satisfaction for their sins before leaving this life ? 
Evidently, then, there must be a state after death in which 
the soul pays its debts to the last farthing ; and this state 
we call purgatory. 

As to the nature of the punishment inflicted in purgatory, 
there is no dogmatic teaching of the Church on the subject, 
but the more common teaching of theologians is that it con- 
sists in the endurance of fire. In this sense the words of St. 
Paul (1 Cor. iii. 15) may be interpreted: *'He himself shall 
be saved, yet so as by fire. " It is a well-grounded opinion 
of some leading Catholic theologians that purgatorial suffer- 
ing far exceeds in severity any of the sufferings of this life. 
It is natural that in the next life God should be doubly 
rigorous in dealing with those who have been less diligent 
in this life in atoning for their transgressions. 

We have seen what reason and Scripture have to say on 
the subject of purgatory; but the undoubted teaching of 
God's Church from the beginning of its history furnishes 
a no less cogent argument in favor of the Catholic doctrine. 
The voice of antiquity is decidedly against the teaching of 
the Reformers ; and if so, we would ask any candid Protest- 
ant reader of these pages whether he can feel it safe to hold 
an opinion which is contradicted by testimonies derived 
from an age when the doctrine and the practice of the 
Church are acknowledged to have been of the purest. 

In recent times the pickax and the spade have brought 
to light in the catacombs of Rome memorials of early Chris- 
tian life which to many of our separated brethren will be 
quite a revelation. There on the walls and tombs of those 
ancient Christian cemeteries is depicted much of the devo- 



384 Purgatory 

tional life of the Church, and it is found to coincide exactly 
with that of the Catholic Church of to-day. Indeed, Catho- 
lics feel quite at home in such places. Now, among these 
monuments of ancient Catholic devotion are inscriptions in 
abundance containing prayers for the dead — prayers that 
the departed souls may soon be admitted into paradise, and 
the like. Why prayers for the souls of the dead if there 
was no need of prayers? We may add that it is a well- 
known historical fact that on the anniversaries of deaths 
the friends of the dead used to assemble at their tombs and 
offer prayers for the repose of their souls. 

And lest any one may think that the customs to which the 
catacombs bear witness were only a matter of personal de- 
votion, tolerated at the best — though the number of the 
inscriptions should dispel the thought — Providence has pre- 
served for us numerous testimonies to the doctrine and prac- 
tice of the Church in the writings of the Fathers and in the 
ancient liturgies. Can any witness be clearer in his testi- 
mony or send more weight with it than St. Augustine when 
he says, ''Some there are who have departed this life not 
so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as 
to be entitled to immediate happiness"? What but the 
Catholic doctrine can be embodied in the words of St. Am- 
brose publicly pronounced at the departure from this life of 
the Emperor Theodosius : * ' I will not leave him till by my 
prayers and lamentations he shall be admitted unto the holy 
mount of the Lord"? 

And what shall we say to the following statements of St. 
Cyprian ? " It is one thing, ' ' he says, ' ' to hope for pardon, 
and another to enter into glory ; to be thrown into prison, 
.and not to be allowed to go out from thence until one has 
paid the last farthing, or at once to receive the reward of 
our faith and virtue. It is one thing to atone for sin by 
long-enduring sufferings and to be cleansed by fire, and 
another thing to have all our sins washed away by martyr- 
dom. It is one thing to hope for a favorable sentence, an- 
other thing to receive at once the crown from the judge." 

These are only specimens of the teaching of the Fathers. 
One would be quite puzzled to know how such clear and 
explicit testimonies either should not be known to Protest- 
ant readers or should fail to produce conviction if we were 
not aware of the practice of Protestant apologists, who 
pass over in silence such testimonies as we have produced 
in favor of the Catholic doctrine, and then fasten upon 



Purgatory 385 

some obscure or irrelevant passage in the writings of a 
few of the Fathers which might be thought to tell against 
the existence of purgatory. If Saints Ambrose, Augustine, 
and Cyprian were placed in a witness-box and made to state 
before a jury of average intelligence their belief in regard 
to a middle state after death, could they be much clearer 
in favor of the Catholic teaching than they are in the above 
passages ? 

We shall add with Cardinal Wiseman that ''there is not 
a single liturgy existing, whether we consider the most an- 
cient period of the Church or the most distant part of the 
world, in which this doctrine is not laid down. In the orien- 
tal liturgies we find parts appointed in which the priest 
or bishop is ordered to pray for the souls of the faithful de- 
parted; and tables were anciently kept in the churches, 
called Diptychs, on which the names of the deceased were 
enrolled, that they might be remembered in the sacrifice 
of the Mass and the prayers of the faithful. ' ' 

Is it not clear, then, that the rejection of the doctrine of 
purgatory by the Reformers was the rejection of a teaching 
of God's Church — a Church which, according to St. Paul, 
is ''the pillar and ground of truth"? And has not the 
silencing of prayers for the dead been the closing up of a 
fountain of mercy in the Church, of which faith and nat- 
ural affection would avail themselves, as they do in point 
of fact in the Catholic Church, in behalf of those who are 
still dear to us in the life beyond the grave 1 

And now a word before closing about a certain scrip- 
tural argument in favor of purgatory which to Catholics is, 
and must be, conclusive, but which to Protestants is unac- 
ceptable. In the Second Book of Machabees (xii. 43-46) 
we are told that Judas Machabeus "sent twelve thousand 
drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to he offered for 
the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concern- 
ing the resurrection . . . and because he considered that 
they who had fallen asleep with godliness had great grace 
laid up for them." The sacred writer adds: ^'It is there- 
fore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, 
that they may he loosed from sins." This statement both 
of fact and of doctrine furnishes, to a Catholic, proof posi- 
tive of the existence of purgatory ; but it is useless to quote 
it to a Protestant, because the Protestant churches exclude 
the books of the Machabees from the canon of the Scrip- 
tures. Regarding them as not inspired, they do not accept 



386 Purgatory 

their statements of fact or of doctrine as the word of God. 
We shall not stop to quarrel with Luther and Calvin for 
having, on their own private authority, rejected one of the 
sacred books which the Church had always included in the 
canon. But granted that the Second Book of Machabees 
is not in the canon and can i^ot be cited as an inspired writ- 
ing, it still has considerable weight as a historical document. 
It throws no little light upon the belief and practice of the 
chosen people of God — or at least of by far the larger and 
better portion of them. For if the great and good leader 
of the Jewish nation and its high priest could thus pro- 
claim his belief in an intermediate state after death, at a 
time when the Law was well observed, and if he was sec- 
onded by the historian, in whose narration there is nothing 
to indicate that the idea was a novel one, the testimony of 
the Second Book of Machabees to the acceptance of the 
doctrine of purgatory by the people of God is of no little 
value ; and thus the voice of antiquity is reinforced in its 
witness against the innovations of the sixteenth century. 
Besides, it is a fact well known from other sources that the 
Jews have had the custom of praying for their dead. 

It is evident, then, that the Catholic doctrine rests firmly 
on the basis of history, reason, and Scripture. 

The objection is sometimes urged, though we hope not 
very seriously, against the Catholic doctrine, that it con- 
tradicts the words of Ecclesiastes : *'If the tree fall to the 
south, or to the north, in what place soever it shall fall, 
there it shall be" (xi. 3). The words are interpreted as 
meaning that death settles a man's fate for eternity. It is 
either heaven or hell, and consequently there is no room for 
purgatory. But we see no necessity of running the met- 
aphor into the ground. The way in which a man 's eternal 
destiny is settled by a good or a bad death may well be 
compared to the way in which the position of a fallen tree 
depends on the direction of its fall ; but an eternal destiny 
is not less eternal, or less final, because of a temporary 
delay in its accomplishment — any more than the general 
position of a tree on the ground is less determined by the 
direction of its fall, even though in falling it should have 
rested a few moments on the edge of a roof. But, aside 
from the metaphor, if the text quoted disproves purgatory, 
it disproves limbo as well. Are the critics of the Catholic 
doctrine ready to sacrifice limbo as well as purgatory? 



Rationalism 387 

RATIONALISM 

Objection. — I follow the light of my reason. I 
can not be forced to admit what I can not under- 
stand. Why was my reason given me? 

The Answer. — You always follow the light of your rea- 
son? Well, does not your reason tell you that it is rea- 
sonable to admit many things which you do not under- 
stand yourself, but which others do understand? 

Faith (which is the same thing as belief) is eminently 
reasonable. The child believes his parents; the pupil be- 
lieves his teacher. Neither the child nor the pupil may be 
able to demonstrate that the earth revolves about the sun ; 
but they believe it, none the less; and they are right in 
their belief. They believe in the moons of Jupiter, though 
they have never seen them. Every day of our lives we 
believe what is said by trustworthy men. We believe, 
among other things, the well-established facts of history. 

It is thus we are brought to a belief in the existence of 
Christ, which is an undeniable historical fact; in the mir- 
acles of Christ, for the Gospels contain an authentic record 
of them; in Christ's mission, for He proved His mission 
by His miracles. Of course, if you hold miracles to be 
impossible, you will probably not believe in Christ's mis- 
sion. But miracles are possible, and Christ did actually 
work miracles. Reason can say nothing against either 
statement. Follow your reason, by all means. (See 
''Miracles" and ''Christ's Divinity.") 

Christ declares He is the Son of God; He says He is 
eternal, as the Father is (John xvii. 5) ; He says He is 
all-powerful (John x, 28) ; He places Himself on a level 
with the Father, as in the formula of Baptism (Matt, xxviii. 
19). Christ has made known to us certain tniths in the 
name of His Father. These truths we must believe, be- 
cause they are taught us by Christ. What God reveals 
is absolute truth. 

If Christ the Son of God teaches that there is a heaven, 
we believe Him. If He teaches there is an eternal hell, 
that we must observe the Ten Commandments, that a man 
is judged by his works, that there is one God in three per- 
sons. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, if He teaches that Bap- 
tism is necessary, that we must believe all that God has 



388 Reformation, The 

revealed, that He is corporeally present in the Sacrament 
of the Altar, if He teaches all this we believe Him, even 
if we can not understand all. When God has imparted 
to us truths which we can not understand, it is reasonable 
to believe in them, no matter how mysterious they may be 
to us. This He has done through the medium of Our Lord 
Jesus Christ. 

Follow your reason, and we shall have no fear for your 
welfare, temporal or eternal. 

REFORMATION, THE 

Protestant Position. — The Reformation was 
"the restoration of the Church to the primitive 
truth and power of the Gospel of the Redemp- 
tion." It has been a source of manifold blessings. 
To call it a revolution or a rebellion is to slan- 
der it. 

Its Kefutation. — 1. The Reformation was a revolt 
against divinely constituted authority. 2. By substituting 
private judgment for authoritative teaching it rendered 
unity of doctrine impossible, and hence aimed a blow at 
the existence of the Church itself. 3. Its logical and his- 
torical outcome is rationaKsm. 4. It has been the fountain- 
source of many social evils. 

A dilemma : When the Reformers made their appearance 
in Europe the Church of Christ either still existed or it 
did not. If it no longer existed, the promises of Christ had 
been made in vain. He had promised Peter that the gates 
of hell should never prevail against His Church (Matt. xvi. 
18) . The gates of hell must have actually prevailed against 
it and destroyed it. He had promised the apostles (Matt, 
xxviii. 20) : ''Behold, I am with you [in your discharge 
of the office of preaching the word] all days, even to the 
consummation of the world, ' ' i.e., to the end of time. Christ 
must have ceased to be with His apostles or their succes- 
sors, and the Church must have become a purely human 
society. 

And not only His promises, but also His prayers must 
have been ineffectual. ''And I will ask the Father, and 
He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may ahide 
with you forever, the Spirit of truth" (John xiv. 16-18). 



Eeformation, The 389 

If His prayer was not heard the Church was no longer in- 
spired by the Spirit of truth. 

But neither the promises nor the prayer of Christ could 
have failed of their object. 

Therefore, the Church of Christ still existed. It was still 
the divinely appointed custodian of revealed truth; its 
claim to obedience was unquestionable; its visible teaching 
authority remained intact ; in all its essentials it must have 
remained such as Christ had constituted it. 

It was not, however, necessarily perfect in all respects. 
The Church had a human side to it, and on its human side 
it was open to defect. Even before Our Lord's ascension 
human weakness or human passion had asserted itself in 
two of the chosen twelve. The Church could remain true to 
its mission and yet include in its fold many an unworthy 
member. Christ and His Holy Spirit could still abide with 
the Church as a body, even though many of its members 
were but dead branches on the living tree of the Church. 

Therefore, when Luther and his fellow-reformers made 
their appearance, the Church of Christ still existed and 
its rulers were still the accredited representatives of Christ. 
Any attempt to destroy their authority must be an attempt 
to destroy the work of God. 

And this was the general belief of Christians at that 
period. There had been, it is true, opponents of the 
authority of the teachers and rulers of the Church, but 
their very opposition stamped them as unchristian. The 
touchstone of orthodoxy was submission to authority. 

Luther himself did not begin with direct opposition to 
Church authority. He began by preaching his peculiar doc- 
trines on faith and good works, even before his outbreak 
at Wittenberg^ ; and in proportion as he became wedded 
to his own opinions and found himself a popular leader 
with numerous followers, then, seeing that the Holy See 
repudiated his doctrines, he forthwith repudiated the Holy 
See. But that, we repeat, was not his first position. 

Even after the publication of his Ninety-five Theses, in 
1517, he frequently declared that he would remain sub- 
ject to the Pope and the Church. Separation from the 
Church he had, in all probability, not dreamed of. As 

*Cf. Janssen, History of the German People at the Close of the Mid- 
dle Ages, vol. iii, pp. 86-89, for documentary proof of the above asser- 
tion. 



390 Reformation, The 

late as 1519 he said, in reference to the Hussites, that "he 
had never countenanced a schism and never in his life 
would." In the same year he again wrote apropos of the 
Hussites the following words: "No provocation is great 
enough, or can become great enough, to justify one in sep- 
arating himself from the Church" — and the following: 
"No manner of sin or evil of which we can form any con- 
ception can justify any one in an attempt to sever the 
bond of Christian charity or destroy religious unity. "^ 

It is only too evident, therefore, that when he afterward 
persisted in preaching his peculiar doctrines in defiance 
of the Pope and the bishops, he was guilty of a revolt 
against divinely constituted authority. But, in following 
this course of conduct, he was only treading in the foot- 
steps of most other would-be reformers from the begin- 
ning of the history of the Church. Opposition to ecclesi- 
astical authority was not usually the first step. The die 
was cast and open revolt begun only when the personal 
views of the reformers were formally rejected by the 
Church. The touchstone of submission was applied and 
they were found wanting. 

When divine authority was gone human judgment 
stepped into its place. It was no longer the Church that 
taught and governed in the name of Christ. Each self- 
constituted reformer — and very soon their name was le- 
gion — sought to impose his own personal opinions on the 
multitude. Authority of some kind had to be assumed, 
and hence we find Martin Luther placing himself on a 
level with St. Paul. "My teaching shall be called in ques- 
tion by no one, not even by angels. Whosoever refuses to 
accept my teaching shall not be saved." 

But no assumption of personal authority could ever 
avail to preserve unitj^ of doctrine among those who had 
rejected the one infallible authority established by Christ. 
Before Luther finished his career, he saw the Reform split 
up into numerous sects, each of them hurling anathemas 
at all the rest. To-day the sects are numbered by the hun- 
dred, though practically each individual is a law to him- 
self in the matter of religion. Outside the Catholic Church, 
unity of faith has vanished forever. There is no basis 

^Ibid, p. 28. 



Reformation, The 391 

for unity, as private judgment and corporate uniformity 
must ever be at variance. 

But the dissolution of unity was not the only evil effect 
of the abandonment of divinely constituted authority. 
Protestant individualism is chiefly responsible for the 
origin and growth of modern rationalism. The exag- 
gerated claims of reason and the ignoring of all authority 
in the matter of religion were the natural outcome of 
Protestantism. When a Catholic becomes a rationalist, it 
is because he has neglected and forfeited his gift of faith. 
When a Protestant becomes a rationalist, it is because he 
is more logical than his fellows. When Protestantism dis- 
carded the authority of the Church, it still held to the 
authority of Scripture, but even the authority of Scrip- 
ture has been gradually disappearing under the solvent of 
private judgment. 

If private judgment can get rid of the authority of 
the Church, there is no reason why it can not get rid of 
the authority of Scripture. 

What possible pledge can it have that Scripture is the 
word of God? The Church is gone, and yet the Church 
was the only legitimate custodian of Scripture. Hence, 
Scripture has fallen from the high place it once occupied 
as the inspired record of God's dealings with men. It 
ranks no higher than any other narrative of past events. 
Criticism can play fast and loose with its statements; en- 
tire books can be discarded ; its most important records of 
God 's revelation can be reasoned out of existence. Finally, 
all belief in revelation must disappear from the mind and 
leave at best a residue of deism. The rationalistic deism 
that infected so many English minds in the seventeenth 
and eighteenth centuries and which afterward, through 
the English philosophers, so profoundly influenced French 
thought among the contemporaries of Voltaire, and thus 
helped to precipitate the great atheistic Kevolution which 
closed the eighteenth century, was the direct offspring of 
English Protestantism. The rationalism that infects Ger- 
many to-day, and extends its influence to America, has 
sprung from the bosom of German Evangelicalism. It 
would be safe to assert that every second or third professor 
of theology in northern Germany handles Scripture, tra- 
dition, and the Fathers in a rationalistic spirit. Many of 



392 Relics 

them retain little or nothing of positive belief that entitles 
them to be strictly called Christians of any type. 

As to the manifold blessings attributed to the Reforma- 
tion, it would be difficult to imagine any single blessing 
due to the Reformation as such. Whatever blessings it 
has conferred are due to the remnant of Christianity 
which it has handed on from the old Catholic days. Its 
own distinctive work and influence have been fraught with 
evils rather than with blessings. Religious discord is not 
a blessing ; neither is rationalism. During the Middle Ages 
there was at least one bond of union between the nations 
of Europe — a common faith. To-day national animosity is 
everywhere intensified by religious hatred. 

To the Reformers we owe the spirit of revolution which 
has so often convulsed modern society. Revolt against the 
highest authority on earth at once set the pace to malcon- 
tents of every description and in every clime. It is to the 
lax principles of the Reformation that we owe the sec- 
ularization of education which is bearing such lamentable 
fruit in our own country to-day. It is to the Reforma- 
tion that we owe the violation of the sanctity of mar- 
riage by divorce and by laws permitting and legalizing 
divorce. In contrast to this, the Catholic Church is the 
one power on earth which consistently and uncompromis- 
ingly takes its stand on religious education and the in- 
violability of marriage. 

It is to the weak and ineffective authority exercised by 
the churches of the Reform over their individual members, 
and to the small sense of obligation in the members them- 
selves, that we must attribute the wholesale abandonment 
of public worship in the United States which has become 
one of our national scandals. There are probably fifty-five 
million persons in the United States who have no connec- 
tion with any religious denomination and are never seen 
within the walls of a church! 

These are some of the evils that have foUowed in the 
wake of Luther's Reformation. 



RELICS 

See "Saints" and ** Superstition. *' 



Religion, a Change of 393 

RELIGION, A CHANGE OF 

Objections. — "To change one's religion, or 
even one's communion, is a very serious and sol- 
emn, nay a very awful, step to take, whatever 
that religion may be." — R. F. Littledale. And 
why should I become a Roman Catholic? Is it 
possible that all those hard things I have heard 
said against the Roman Catholics have no foun- 
dation? And why should I leave a religion that 
has afforded me so much help and consolation? 
And then, too. Providence has placed me under 
the guidance of spiritual directors who bid me 
quiet my fears and remain where I am: what 
warrant should I have for rejecting their 
counsel? 

The Answer. — But whence those fears? If you derive 
so much help and consolation from your present religion, 
whence your misgivings ? Is it not true that you see strong 
reasons for abandoning your religion, however much help 
and consolation it may have yielded? The greatest help 
you can receive in your journey to eternity is that which 
shall place you on the right way, no matter what consola- 
tion you may feel in traveling on the wrong way. 

The question of questions to be considered by any of 
our separated brethren whose minds are not quite at rest 
about their religion, is not whether there is some good, or 
even much good, in the religion of their birth, but whether 
there is not another religion to which it is their duty to 
belong — the question of help and consolation being left 
to that Providence of whose dispositions they make so 
much in their present anxious situation. 

It has unfortunately been the habit of recent controver- 
sialists, particularly those of the "higher" Anglican type, 
to confuse the issue, in their attempt to stop the stream 
of conversions flowing Romeward. Dr. Littledale, for in- 
stance, is careful to remind the wavering that nothing can 
justify their becoming Catholics but a reasonable belief 
that they shall be obeying God's will better and shall know 
more truth about Him than formerly. But, as Dr. Ryder 
reminds him, these are just not the points to be consid- 
ered. It is not a question of obeying God's will better. 



394 Religion, a Change of 

but of obeying it at all ; nor of knowing more truth about 
Him, but of knowing the truth about His Church. It is a 
question of the esse, not of the hene esse — in other words, 
of simply being in the Church of God, and not of being 
well or ill in it — ^though well-being will necessarily fol- 
low admission into the Church, if one cooperates with 
grace. 

Writers of this school, in order to show that converts 
to "Eomanism" will not be better off as ''Romanists," 
work upon their fears by exhibiting all the abuses, real 
or imaginary, that have ever been laid at the door of the 
Church, and, of course, never a word about the work of 
sanctification that has been wrought and still is being 
wrought in its members by the Church, or of the peace 
of mind which thousands upon thousands have experienced 
on entering the Church. 

Controversy on questions of dogma, moral, or history 
may be prolonged indefinitely, and with a degree of plausi- 
bility, by a clever anti-Catholic disputant; but there is 
one thing that should at least give him pause, and that is 
the explanation of the fact that countless men and women 
— many of them of the first order of intelligence — whose 
thoughts and judgments about Eome had been steeped in 
prejudice as deep as Doctor Littledale 's, have at length, 
by becoming Catholics, entered what has been for them 
to the end of their days the City of Peace. The number 
of those who have not found such contentment, or who 
have returned to the City of Confusion, might almost be 
counted on the fingers of both hands. 

Another mode of working on the fears of those who are 
looking Romeward is to enlarge upon the tremendous im- 
portance of the step they are tempted to take. The open- 
ing sentence of Doctor Littledale 's ' ' Plain Reasons Against 
Joining the Church of Rome" (quoted above) furnishes a 
typical instance of this species of rhetoric. We call the 
reader's attention to the climactic arrangement of epithets. 
'*To change one's religion," he says, *'or even one's com- 
munion, is a very serious and solemn, nay, a very awful 
step to take, whatever that religion may be." We shall 
not take him too literally in the last clause, ' ' whatever that 
religion may be," for we can hardly suppose he would de- 
liver a sentence like the one we are quoting to the idol- 
atrous natives of the Zambesi, endeavoring to impress them 



Religion, a Change of 395 

deeply with a sense of the awful responsibility they were 
assuming in becoming Christians. 

But Rome is more of a bugaboo. Imagine the effect of 
these words on the timorous conscience of one who looks 
to his Anglican pastor for guidance in a matter which is, 
we admit, certainly important. Though, really, I fancy 
that here and there an Anglican reader of the book would 
retain sufficient coolness of judgment to see that where it 
is a question of escaping from a flood and getting into some 
ark of salvation, it is not the awfulness of the step that 
would impress one so much as its absolute necessity as a 
means of self-preservation. As a matter of fact, a thought 
that often visits the minds of converts is that of the awful 
risk they had incurred hy remaining so long outside the 
Church of God. 

No less mischievous is the effect of another device of 
the controversialist, that, namely, of harping perpetually 
on the fact that Providence has placed Anglicans where 
they are, and that, consequently, there is a presumption 
in favor of their remaining there. "On the face of 
things," Dr. Littledale goes on to say, ''this step at least 
looks like revolt against God's will, since we were born 
and reared in our first creed without any act or choice of 
our own, and just as He was pleased to ordain for us." 
A sweet and consoling thought it is that Providence has 
placed us where we are. We shall not have a word to say 
against an Anglican's appreciation of the work of Provi- 
dence in placing him in a communion which retains so 
much of Catholic truth. We are only anxious that full 
justice be done the work of Providence, which has placed 
many Anglicans in a communion in which it is natural for 
them to have serious doubts whether, after all, Anglican- 
ism is no more than a halfway-house on the road to Rome 
— doubts which they must resolve, and which they can cer- 
tainly resolve by the aid of ordinary logic and the grace 
of God. 

And this brings us to the consideration of the true log- 
ical bearings of the situation in the case of the doubting 
ones. Many honest inquirers are seriously hindered by the 
complexity which they throw into the problem. They seek 
an answer to many questions, whereas there is only one. 
They are exercised by the question of infallibility, or b}" 
the abuses of the Roman court in past centuries, or by the 



396 Religion, a Change of 

veneration of relics ; and they pass in a bewildered, perhaps 
a despondent, state of mind from one to another of these 
subjects and make little or no progress toward the truth. 
The one great question that should occupy their attention 
is, Where shall I find a Church which is divinely commis- 
sioned to lead me and others into the way of salvation; a 
Church, therefore, which speaks in the name of Christ and 
with a consciousness of divine authority? 

And this is not only the leading question, but the one 
most easily solved. The great outlines of the Church of 
God are clearly enough exhibited in Holy Writ; and one 
great distinguishing feature of the Church was that it 
was to go forth and announce the Gospel with all the au- 
thority of Him who sent it on its mission. Ponder the 
following words: 

"Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them 
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 
have commanded you : and behold, I am with you all days, 
even to the consummation of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 
19, 20). 

The apostles and their successors, even to the consumma- 
tion, or end, of the world, were to teach in the name of 
Christ, and, therefore, with a claim to authority. And the 
perpetuity of their authority, as well as of their teaching, 
was to be sealed by the perpetual presence of Christ in 
their midst. 

And, again: **He that heareth you heareth Me; and 
he that despiseth you despiseth Me" (Luke x. 16). More- 
over, the Paraclete was to abide with them forever (John 
xiv. 16, 18) ; and He was to teach them all truth bearing 
on man's salvation (John xvi. 13). 

And we find the apostles actually exercising this author- 
ity as the teachers and rulers of the Church. They act 
as the vicegerents of Christ and speak in no faltering tones. 
Notably, at the general assembly of the apostles and an- 
cients in Jerusalem, does this consciousness of authority 
distinguish their utterances. After deciding the question 
that has brought them together, they write to Antioch and 
the other places concerned, saying, among other things: 
*'It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost, a7id us, to lay no 
further burden upon you than these necessary things" 
(Acts XV. 28). 



Religion, a Change of 397 

It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us I 

The same confident sense of authority is seen in the 
teaching of the disciples and successors of the apostles, as 
their acts are reported in the writings of those who are 
known as the apostolic Fathers. Indeed, there is no age 
of the Church in which the successors of the apostles have 
not spoken in the most clear and decided tones. Now, the 
Church must always be found teaching with the same au- 
thority ; otherwise she would fail of her mission ; she would 
not be the ''pillar and ground of truth"; the ''gates of 
heir' would have prevailed against her, contrary to the 
promise of her divine Founder; Christ would have ceased 
to be with His Church, whereas He promised to be with 
her to the end of time; the Holy Ghost, "the spirit of 
truth," whose presence in the Church was pledged by Our 
Lord Himself, would have departed from her. 

The inquirer after the truth is, therefore, confronted 
with these two alternatives : he must either consider Christ's 
promises as worthless, or acknowledge that there is still a 
Church on earth speaking infallibly in His name and with 
His authority. 

And now the problem should be much simplified. The 
application of the above dilemma may be made thus : 1. It 
is admitted on all hands that the Church commonly called 
Catholic, the Church subject to the See of Rome, was 
founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. 2. It is the only 
church that speaks with authority and requires absolute 
submission to its teaching. Other churches are little more 
than schools of opinion, with a certain amount of external 
organization, and requiring a certain degree of external 
conformity. Not one of them lays claim to absolute au- 
thority; most of them boast of the absence of it; all of 
them acknowledge, at least virtually, that the message they 
are delivering to the world admits of indefinite amendment. 
The conclusion is inevitable: Therefore, the Roman 
Church is the Church of the apostles, the Church of Christ. 

The conclusion we have reached is, of course, fatal to 
all branch theories; for any so-called branch of the true 
Church which repudiates the principle of authority, and 
refuses to place itself in communion with, and in submis- 
sion to, the one Church speaking with authority, is a 
branch of the true Church only in name. 

Other aspects of the Church's life and mission may in- 



398 Resurrection of Christ, The 

deed present themselves to inquiring minds, and many in- 
deed are the legitimate avenues of approach by which seri- 
ous minds have made their way back to the Church of their 
fathers; but the ultimate synthesis of all modes of reason- 
ing other than the one we have proposed will be found in 
the divine credentials of the teaching authority of the 
Church. 

And now one word as to the position of those individual 
souls who have placed their destinies in the hands of their 
spiritual guides and find no warrant for rejecting their 
advice. God forbid that we should wantonly inspire dis- 
trust where confidence is reposed with such edifying sub- 
mission of spirit, and doubtless, too, with much spiritual 
profit. We should fear that the attempt to do so might 
recoil upon ourselves. Nevertheless, we see a vast differ- 
ence between the position of a Catholic and that of an 
Anglican confessor. In matters bearing on the Faith, the 
Catholic director of consciences can speak in the name of 
a Church which teaches with authority, whereas the non- 
Catholic director can do no more than repeat the formulas 
of his Church and defend them, if he finds it in his con- 
science to do so. For the rest, if he is consistent with his 
own theological principles, he can only say: ^'Follow your 
lights. Read, inquire, pray. Don't allow anything to keep 
you from embracing the truth — no, not even the necessity 
of consulting a Catholic priest." 

These last words may fall unpleasantly on the ears of 
the Anglican or the Evangelical director of consciences, 
but they reflect his true position. Any attempt to coerce 
the conscience of a penitent, or even to discourage him 
from entering the path of free inquiry, is morally wrong 
on Anglican and Evangelical principles. 

RELIGION 

IS IT A PRIVATE AFFAIR ? 

See "Socialism IV — Its Bearings on Religion." 

RESURRECTION OF CHRIST, THE 

Objections. — i. The disciples of Christ, in 
thinking He had risen from the dead, were labor- 
ing under an hallucination. Their minds vi^ere 



Resurrection of Christ, The 399 

so filled with the thought of the Master that 
faith and imagination combined to create an 
image of His living humanity, which they took 
for the reality. — Pfleiderer, Strauss et al. 2. 
The story of the Resurrection can not be ac- 
cepted as authentic because the number and 
order of succession of the Lord's apparitions to 
His disciples can not be ascertained with cer- 
tainty. — Harnack. 

The Answer. — On no other subject connected with Our 
Lord 's earthly career has the ingenuity of critics been more 
busily exercised than upon His resurrection from the dead ; 
and their critical zeal is the best proof of the crucial char- 
acter of the question of the Resurrection. The sovereign 
importance of the dogma of the Resurrection is recognized 
by every Christian. ''If Christ be not risen again," says 
St. Paul, "your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins" 
(1 Cor. XV. 17). But an all-wise Providence has brought 
it to pass that no other fact in history has been better at- 
tested and no attempts at disproving Christian dogma have 
covered critics with half as much ridicule as the effort to 
reduce the history of the Resurrection to a myth. 

The books of the New Testament have had the same good 
fortune — though it was more than good fortune — as Chris- 
tianity itself, inasmuch as both came into being in a period 
of the world's existence when any important event, if it 
took place at all, could never be buried in obscurity or be 
lost beneath a mass of legendary lore. The world had 
become more of a unit by the intercommunication of its 
parts, and more than ever, as a unit, had learned to trans- 
mit its written records to succeeding ages. Two great lan- 
guages, which divided the civilized world between them, to 
wit, the Latin and the Greek, became the twin channels by 
which the thoughts of one people were conveyed to all the 
others. Hence Christianity, which in its essence is a world- 
religion, and the sacred documents, or ' ' Scriptures, ' ' which 
emanated from it, have come down to us, not obscured and 
deformed by time, but in all their original integrity and 
bearing the same intrinsic relation to each other as in the 
days of the apostles. We are, of course, describing only a 
partial cause, and that, too, under Providence, of the per- 
petuation of Christianity and its sacred writings. 



400 Resurrection of Christ, The 

The books of the New Testament, taken in the gross, are 
accepted, even by most of the ''higher critics," as the gen- 
uine writings of the apostles and their immediate disciples, 
and, so far as they are historical, as credible narratives of 
facts connected with the life and teaching of Jesus of 
Nazareth. Many of the ''higher critics" have indeed im- 
pugned the genuineness of the fourth Gospel, which from 
the earliest centuries has been ascribed to St. John the 
Beloved Disciple ; but their acceptance of the first three, or 
the synoptic Gospels, is quite sufficient so far as we are con- 
cerned. The synoptics contain more than enough to estab- 
lish the fact of the Resurrection. But the critics, whilst 
admitting the genuineness of the Gospels, assail the Chris- 
tian interpretation of them. As to the Resurrection, whilst 
crediting the evangelists with honesty of intention, they 
consider them the dupes of their own imagination. 

Several of these hostile criticisms are so utterly baseless — 
in some cases so utterly silly — that it is only extrinsic con- 
siderations that entitle them to any consideration at the 
hands of a serious apologist. Take, for instance, the view 
of the Resurrection defended by Pfleiderer, a writer whose 
superficial books on great subjects are unfortunately find- 
ing their way into English. The illusion of the apostles 
regarding the Resurrection, he tells us, was a psychological 
fact "to which history furnishes countless parallels, the 
miraculous character of which consists in nothing more 
than the creative force of a faith and a love which are 
stronger than death." In other words, the faith of the 
disciples was so lively and their love so ardent as to pro- 
duce in their imaginations an image of their Lord so lifelike 
as to persuade them that they beheld Him with their bodily 
eyes. It is a wonder that the very penning of such a state- 
ment was not enough to make it seem ridiculous before 
the ink was dry on the paper. 

In lieu of the ' ' countless parallels ' * furnished by history, 
where, we ask, is there one solitary parallel to the series of 
supposed delusive apparitions recorded by the evangelists? 
To suppose that, not one, but many persons — not in their 
sleeping, but in their waking hours — fancied, merely fan- 
cied — on many distinct occasions, and all at the same time 
and in the same way, at intervals during a period of exactly 
forty days and not a day longer, that they saw with their 
bodily eyes one who had risen from the dead — ^heard Him 



Resurrection of Christ, The 401 

speak, listened to His instructions, took food with Him, 
felt His presence with the sense of touch, and finally saw 
Him mount into the skies — to suppose that all this was the 
work of pure imagination is to exhibit in oneself a psycho- 
logical phenomenon no less remarkable than the supposed 
delusion of the disciples of Jesus. 

And what possible warrant is there for supposing that 
the faith of the disciples was in such a state of exaltation? 
Their very lack of faith was so great as to deserve the 
reproaches of the divine Master. His efforts to revive their 
faith and the devices He so condescendingly employed for 
this purpose furnish some of the most touching passages 
in the four Gospels. **We hoped," said two of them de- 
spondingly as they were retiring from the scene of their 
great disappointment, *'we hoped that it was He that 
should have redeemed Israel; and now . . . to-day is the 
third day since these things were done." The third day? 
Why, that was the very day on which their faith and their 
imagination should have been liveliest; and yet it is the 
day on which their despondency reaches its height and their 
faith was all but entirely eclipsed. The incredulity of the 
disciples is indeed one of the most striking features of the 
history of the Resurrection. 

Even Harnack, the cynosure of German evangelical theo- 
logians, is found in the benches of the opposition. Har- 
nack finds it difficult to make out of the four Gospel nar- 
ratives one clear story in which the number and the order 
of occurrence, of Our Lord's apparitions are given with 
perfect clearness; hence he rejects the four narratives in 
the lump, as furnishing no satisfactory evidence of the 
Resurrection. 

Strange, that a man of Professor Harnack 's caliber 
should take up an attitude of mind so utterly illogical. If 
his argument is conclusive we might with as much reason 
infer from the fact that the precise number and order of 
Julius Caesar's expeditions to ancient Germany can no 
longer be ascertained with exactness that he really never 
set foot in Germany. And yet no one questions Caesar's 
having been in Germany. 

Let the reader suppose that four persons come to him, 
one after the other, and give him a somewhat detailed ac- 
count of a series of important happenings, all tending to 
prove and illustrate a certain fact. Let him suppose, fur- 



402 Resurrection of Christ, The 

ther, that a few of the details in one narrative can not easily 
be made to fit in with certain details in the others. Not 
that there is any manifest contradiction, but that there is 
a trifle of mystery as to how certain incidents could be made 
to dovetail together in a single account of the whole trans- 
action. Now, if the mysterious element should be dropped 
altogether out of the narrative, and yet an abundance of 
evidence of the main fact remained, it would be quite il- 
logical to infer from the mysteriousness of the part elimi- 
nated the uncertainty of the part retained. 

And yet this is precisely what Professor Harnack does 
with the accounts of the four evangelists. It is not clear to 
his mind how the incidents are to be arranged chronologi- 
cally, or how the journey or journeys of the holy women 
to the sepulcher are to be made to harmonize; and for 
these and similar reasons he rejects the entire story; and 
yet the story in all its other aspects is simply overwhelming 
as furnishing evidence of the Eesurrection and of the subse- 
quent apparitions. Every species of testimony is supplied. 
Our Lord's disciples see Him frequently, speak with Him 
and in some cases hold long conversations with Him, take 
food with Him, and at His own pressing invitation touch 
His hands and feet or His side. 

If the multitude and the variety of the details are so 
convincing, the special and unlooked-for character of some 
of them would alone be convincing if unsupported by the 
other incidents. We refer to those which exhibit the in- 
credulity of the disciples and the repeated efforts of their 
Lord to remove it. Here, as elsewhere, the perfect artless- 
ness of the story and the air of guileless sincerity as well 
as of objective reality that pervade it have succeeded in 
breaking down the objections of those who had begun by 
endeavoring to demolish either the genuineness or the au- 
thenticity of the Gospel narratives, but were ultimately 
obliged to make a change of position, which only revealed 
the inherent weakness of their main contention. 

The palpable weakness of the case made out by such 
able men as Harnack can be explained only by the fact 
that their minds are constantly playing at cross-purposes. 
Accepting, on the one hand, the Gospels as genuine, they 
are committed, on the other, to philosophical dogmas which 
make them quite incapable of seeing in the Gospels what 
570uld Otherwise obtrude itself upon their notice. If they 



Resurrection of the Dead, The 403 

could only reduce the Gospels to those inferior types of 
sacred books of the East which have come down to us out 
of a nebulous past and bear upon them only obscure marks 
of their origin, the task of demolishing the evidence for 
the Resurrection would be a much simpler one; but the 
books of the New Testament can never be relegated to such 
a category of sacred writings. They shine both by their 
own intrinsic light and by the light of all modern history. 
And yet their obvious message is obscure to those whose 
minds are warped by an antecedent prejudice against the 
supernatural, and especially the miraculous. The Resur- 
rection, if it was a fact, was a miracle; but miracles are 
impossible; therefore — for Harnack and his compeers — 
darkness in the midst of light ! 

Two other objections to the Resurrection deserve only a 
passing notice, as they receive to-day but little counte- 
nance from those who would gladly avail themselves of 
them if the objections had any force. The one is that Our 
Lord never rose from the dead, because He had not really 
died. His apparent death was followed by a revival of 
bodily strength during His entombment. The other is that 
the story of the apparitions was a deliberate fabrication 
of the disciples of Jesus. A thoughtful and unprejudiced 
reading of the Gospels will convince the reader that neither 
of these assertions has the smallest foundation in fact. If 
there is anything for which Providence has provided in 
connection with the life of the Saviour it is a superabun- 
dance of evidence bearing on the reality of His humanity 
and of His passion and death. As for anything like wilful 
imposture practised by the apostles, the theory refutes it- 
self so easily that few authors of any reputation in our 
day subscribe to it. (See ''Christ's Divinity.) 



RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, THE 

Objection. — It is chemically impossible that 
men's bodies should rise from their graves ; for 
the same chemical elements have passed in suc- 
cession into different human bodies. How can 
they be assigned to individual bodies at the 
Resurrection? A human corpse decays; in the 
course of time it becomes a fertilizer for grass; 



404 Resurrection of the Dead, The 

the grass is eaten by a cow ; the cow finally be- 
comes food for men. 

The Answer. — Our scientific critic of the doctrine of 
the Resurrection is thinking of a sort of clearing-house 
process which is going to baffle the divine wisdom because 
the conditions of the problem make it impossible of solu- 
tion. I can not rise with the identical body which I have 
in this life because others, doubtless, who will have died 
before me will lay claim to the chemical elements of my 
bodily composition ; and those claimants will be confronted 
with still others, to whom they will have to surrender all 
that they have taken from me. 

This objection has been seriously urged; but what an 
amount of assumption it is built upon! Among other 
things, it takes for granted that on the last day the con- 
fusion described above must be universal, and that no 
human body can be identified as simply belonging to this 
or that individual man. But why assume so much? If 
particles of carbon are found to-day in any living human 
body and a few generations hence in the grass of the 
fields, and still later in some other human organism, it 
does not follow that at the Resurrection each and every 
human body will be unable to claim anything simply and 
absolutely as its own, or, in other words, will have lost its 
identity. Indeed it can not be proved that any single body 
will have lost its identity. 

What, after all, constitutes the identity of a human or- 
ganism ? It is scientifically certain that in any given human 
body not a single atom remains of those which it contained 
twenty years ago. And yet who will maintain that we do 
not possess the same bodies we possessed twenty years ago 1 
With an entire change of component elements in successive 
stages of its life, the body remains one and the same in 
identity. The Christian doctrine of the Resurrection does 
not imply that the bodies of men are to rise with all the 
component parts which they had at any particular mo- 
ment of time, or which they had even at the moment of 
death. Nor is it in contradiction with anything which 
we know for certain as to what constitutes the continuous 
identity of an organism. If any actual part of our bodily 



Roman See, The 405 

composition is needed on the last day to complete our cor- 
poreal identity, we may rest assured that an all-wise God 
will be able to find it. 

''He knoweth our frame" (Ps. cii. 14). ''No word 
shall be impossible with God" (Luke i. 37). 



REVELATION 

Objections. — How can God, who is a Spirit 
and infinite, speak to men or make any revela- 
tion to them? Even if He could make a revela- 
tion, it would be unnecessary ; men by the aid of 
their understandings can arrive at a knowledge 
of God and of natural religion and by the exer- 
cise of their wills lead a religious life. 

The Answer. — If God has conferred upon us the gift of 
speech to enable us to communicate with one another He 
surely can find a means of communicating with us Himself. 
As well might we say that an infinite and purely spiritual 
Being could not have created or preserved us as say that 
He can not reveal Himself to us. If our natures were 
purely material we should not be capable of receiving a 
revelation, and for that reason God could not make a reve- 
lation to us; but as He has given us spiritual souls and 
has therefore made us like, though in&iitely inferior to 
Himself, He can communicate with our souls much more 
easily than souls can communicate with one another. 

Whether any revelation is necessary it is for God to 
judge. If, as a fact. He has made a revelation, and if be- 
sides the precepts of the natural law He has laid upon us 
other precepts, it is for us to hearken to the revelation and 
obey His commands. 

God has made a revelation through the medium of His 
Son, Jesus Christ, and it is for us to accept it with grati- 
tude. 

ROMAN SEE, THE 

See ** Pope, The," I, II, III. 



406 Saints 



SAINTS 



Objections. — The Catholic veneration of saints 
detracts much from the purity of divine worship, 
which should be concerned with God alone. The 
intercession of saints is a doctrine opposed to 
Scripture, for Christ alone is our advocate and 
mediator; and Scripture nowhere tells us that 
the dead can hear our prayers. 

The Answer. — Veneration of Saints. — Why do we ven- 
erate the saints ? We venerate the saints, first, because we 
admire their marvelous virtues and gifts of grace. An 
admiration of what is good and great is an instinct im- 
planted in every child of Adam. It would be difficult, even 
if it were desirable, to rid the heart of this natural dis- 
position; and no less difficult would it be, without unnat- 
ural violence, to banish the expression of that feeling from 
the public services of the Church. God Himself has so 
intimately associated holy men and women with Himself 
in the work of man's salvation that it is impossible to cele- 
brate the great mysteries of the Christian religion without 
giving due recognition to the human instruments which 
God deigned to employ in the regeneration of mankind. 

Hence from the very beginning Christians paid fitting 
honor to the saints of the New Dispensation. The Roman 
catacombs — those underground places of refuge of the early 
Christians — exhibit on their walls, even to this day, repre- 
sentations not only of our Blessed Redeemer, but also of 
His Mother and the apostles; and the fact supplies clear 
evidence of the way in which the thought of those holy 
persons mingled with the devotion felt for the person of 
Our Redeemer Himself. 

Objection. — But Catholics kneel to the saints and ask 
them to help them. In fact, their devotion to the saints 
bears all the marks of divine worship. 

Reply. — Catholics venerate the saints, but do not wor- 
ship them. The word ''worship" as used to-day has been 
narrowed down to meaning the supreme homage paid to 
God alone. Such supreme homage we Catholics do not pay 
to the saints — and this every Catholic child knows from 
his catechism. If we kneel to the saints it is because kneel- 
ing is one of the natural attitudes of earnest petition and 



Saints 407 

of reverence, and because in praying to the saints we are 
praying to God through the saints. In days of yore a 
dutiful child would fall upon his knees to ask his parents' 
blessing. If we ask the help of the saints we ask for only 
such help as they can give us by interceding for us. They 
are humble petitioners like ourselves, only more powerful 
ones. 

In the second place, we honor the saints because God 
Himself has lavished His honors upon them. Even in this 
life He has put upon them the seal of His love and bene- 
diction and held them up for the admiration of mankind. 
But still greater are the honors conferred upon them in 
heaven. Readers of the Apocalypse know the sublime 
heights to which He has raised His servants. The four- 
and-twenty ancients, representing the hosts of the elect, 
are not only raised to an equality with the angels, but oc- 
cupy thrones near to, and encircling, the throne of the 
Most High. The apostles are on the last day to be asso- 
ciated with Christ Himself as the judges of the world. 
**When the Son of man shall sit on the seat of His majesty, 
you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes 
of Israel." Can it be surprising, then, if the honors be- 
stowed upon the saints in the other life are in some degree 
reflected in the ritual and the devotion of God's Church 
on earth? 

Finally, Catholic veneration of the saints is inspired by 
a love of holiness, and, implicitly, of the holiness of God 
Himself. Why do we praise and admire the saints? Evi- 
dently because of their holiness. Our praise of the saints 
is a tribute to holiness, and no one can sincerely pronounce 
a panegyric on a saint without thereby manifesting his 
love of holiness, and implicitly his love of Him who is 
holiness itself. And we may add that if our veneration of 
the saints has for its inspiring motive a love of holiness, 
our devotion to the saints results in an increase of holiness 
in ourselves. Our opponents can never realize to the full 
what they have lost by relegating the saints to the position 
which they occupy in the doctrine and the formularies of 
Protestantism. 

Objection. — But, really, the veneration of the saints 
seems to be allotted a disproportionate share in the devo- 
tion of Catholics. To a Protestant it seems to obtrude 



408 Saints 

itself everywhere into religious services. It surely must 
lessen the honor paid to God. 

Eeply. — We are not surprised at the objection. Protes- 
tants have generally only a very meager knowledge of 
Catholic doctrine and practice, and their knowledge is 
mostly of what seems to them to be objectionable features 
of Catholicism. They know little of the actual proportions 
observed in Catholic devotion, being unable, of course, to 
view the Church from within. To borrow a comparison 
from Cardinal Wiseman, they are like persons who view 
from the street, and in the daytime, the stained-glass win- 
dows of a church and are consequently unable to make 
out the meaning or judge of the merits of the pictures. 
In the first place, even if devotion to the saints were more 
common than it is, the considerations we have already 
placed before the reader ought to convince him that the 
result of such devotion to the saints would be an increased 
fervor in the service of God. But if our separated breth- 
ren desire a more decisive proof that devotion to the saints 
does not overshadow the direct worship of God in the 
Catholic Church, we would call his attention to the fact 
that no other Christian denomination can bear any com- 
parison with the Catholic Church in its public celebration 
of the essential mysteries of religion and in its direct wor- 
ship of the supreme Lord of heaven and earth. The solem- 
nities connected with Easter, Holy Week and Christmas, 
Corpus Christi and the Forty Hours' Devotion may be 
cited as instances. The holy sacrifice of the Mass, which 
is the sacrifice of the cross daily renewed and offered to 
God by His Divine Son, is the very core and center of 
religious life in the Catholic Church. It is in the Catholic 
Church that Lent and Advent have a meaning, and each is 
a preparation for one of the two great feasts of Our Lord. 
On Sunday, which is the Lord's Day par excellence, Cath- 
olic churches are the only ones filled with worshipers — and 
that not only once in the course of the day, but many times 
from five or six o'clock in the morning to midday. In a 
word, devotion to the saints pales before the worship of 
God. 

What we have said thus far goes to show that devotion 
to the saints is not unreasonable in principle, and that it 
has no harmful, but rather positively good, results; but 
what if it should prove useless? Is there any proof that 



Saints 409 

the saints can know that we are praying to them, or that 
if they do know it and present our petitions to God, their 
prayers are heard? Any one who should put this ques- 
tion might be asked, in turn, Do you believe that the saints 
are in heaven? The saints are, of course, in heaven and 
enjoy there the same beatific vision as the angels. More- 
over, their state is like to that of the angels: ''They are 
as the angels in heaven" (Mark xii. 25). The visions of 
the Apocalypse represent angels and saints as forming one 
heavenly community. Now, as regards the knowledge pos- 
sessed by the heavenly choirs of the events of this earth, 
we have but to recall the words of Our Lord describing the 
joy that thrills the hosts of the blessed at the sight of re- 
pentance for sin. ''I say to you that even so there shall 
be joy in heaven upon one sinner that doth penance" 
(Luke XV. 7). Joy at the sight of repentance supposes a 
knowledge of the repentance. Therefore, the inhabitants 
of heaven are not ignorant of the happenings of earth; 
and, surely, if there is anything they are likely to know 
about us it is the fact that we are imploring their in- 
tercession with God. 

The angels, who, as we have said, form one heavenly 
assembly with the saints, are deeply interested in the af- 
fairs of mortal men. ' ' Are they not, ' ' asks St. Paul, ' ' all 
ministering spirits, sent to minister for them who shall re- 
ceive the inheritance of salvation" (Heb. i. 14) ? And 
they are represented by the sacred writers as offering the 
prayers of men before the throne of God. Of this the 
angel Raphael gave Tobias assurance when he told him, 
''When thou didst pray with tears and didst bury the 
dead, and didst leave thy dinner and hide the dead by 
day in thy house and bury them by night, I offered thy 
prayer to the Lord" (Tob. xii. 12). In the Apocalypse 
(viii. 3) an angel is described as offering the prayers of 
the faithful of God's Church to the Almighty under the 
symbol of the smoke of incense rising out of a golden censer. 
It is inconceivable that the saints, who enjoy the same 
glory and the same divine favor as the angels, should not 
join with the angels in their acts of mediation between God 
and men. 

The Veneration of Relics. — Once the true idea of de- 
votion to the saints is grasped, it should be easy to under- 
stand a Catholic's behavior with regard to sacred relics. 



410 Saints 

If we love and venerate the saints, we can not help feeling 
our devotion moved at the sight of objects once in close 
relation with them. The feeling is born of an instinct im- 
planted in every human heart. It is essentially the same 
feeling as is awakened by the presence of an object once 
belonging to a dear departed friend. 

It is the same feeling as our fellow-citizens here in Amer- 
ica experience in regard to those numerous, though in 
themselves trivial, objects which are so carefully guarded 
in our museums and to which so many pilgrimages have 
been made, solely because of the association of those ob- 
jects with the lives and deeds of the Fathers of our re- 
public. These things are not cherished and venerated for 
their own sakes, but for the sake of those whose memory 
is, on its own account, dear to us. Many of our readers 
will easily recall the veneration shown to our famous Lib- 
erty Bell in its various triumphal progresses in different 
sections of the country. They will remember with what 
eagerness the people flocked to see it, and how they actually 
touched it with coins or other objects to be handed down 
to their children. 

Why this veneration for an old belH The bell is ven- 
erated because it is the bell that rang out the news of 
a heroic deed performed by those who are venerated as 
the founders of our liberties. And may not Christians ven- 
erate the remains of those whose deeds in the service of 
their Maker were no less heroic? May they not pay special 
honor to human bodies which were once the temples of 
the Holy Ghost ? Is there any essential difference between 
the veneration paid to civic relics and that shown to the 
relics of God's saints? 

Yes, it may be objected, there is an essential difference 
between the two. You attribute a supernatural power to 
relics of saints. You pretend that they can heal the sick 
and that by burning lights before them you can obtain 
special graces. 

Now, in the first place, there is no general attributing 
of miraculous power to the relics of the saints. If miracles 
are ever wrought by their relics, it is a thing of exceed- 
ingly rare occurrence, and Catholics rarely give a thought 
to the matter. Thousands of sacred relics are preserved 
in Catholic churches from the single motive of honoring 
those who were so dear to God. 



Saints 411 

Undoubtedly, wonders have sometimes been wrought by 
relics of saints; but, as touching these events, the objec- 
tion we are considering is based on a very serious mis- 
conception of Catholic belief in this matter. No Catholic 
is foolish enough to think that a fragment of bone or a 
shred of a garment has any miraculous virtue in itself. 
If the devotion paid to such objects is ever the occasion 
of any supernatural effect, the effect is produced by the 
power of God, who wishes to honor His saints by bestow- 
ing favors on those who honor their remains. It must 
surely be pleasing to God to see His children pay honor 
to those bodies which once enshrined so much holiness. 

The Old Testament furnishes a remarkable example of 
a miracle wrought by the body of a saint, without any 
thought or expectation of such a wonder on the part of 
those concerned. After the death of the prophet Eliseus, 
and when the Moabites were making an incursion into the 
land, the mourners at the funeral of a dead man, perceiv- 
ing the Moabites approach, hurriedly threw the corpse into 
the tomb of the prophet. ''And when it had touched the 
bones of Eliseus the man came to life and stood upon his 
feet" (4 Kings xiii. 21). What God did to testify His 
love for Eliseus He can do in the case of other saints. 
Indeed, it is only natural to suppose that under the Chris- 
tian dispensation such divine testimony in favor of His 
saints should be more frequent than under the Old Law. 
And yet the common Protestant idea is that since the 
coming of Christ the heavens have been closed and God's 
favors are no longer showered down with the same pro- 
fusion as of old — that there was, indeed, an outpouring of 
miraculous favors from the person of Christ and through 
the agency of the apostles, and then — it suddenly ceased. 

This idea, strange enough in itself, is at variance with 
the experience and the persuasion of Christians, East and 
West — everjrwhere, except where Protestantism holds sway. 
For, we are certain that in all ages of the Church the 
wisest and best of her children have borne testimony, not 
only to the general veneration of relics, but also to the 
common persuasion of Christians that God is wont to work 
wonders through the medium of such objects. The "Dia- 
logues" of St. Gregory the Great, a pontiff to whom the 
majority of English-speaking people owe their Christian 
faith, testify to many such instances of supernatural favors. 



412 Saints 

Similar testimony is rendered by many of the Fathers. 
Leibnitz, the illustrious German philosopher, after citing, 
Protestant though he was, numerous authorities of the early 
Church in favor of the veneration of the saints, adds the 
following short comment: ''It is not necessary to add 
much on the subject of relics. From the example of the 
bones of Eliseus it is certain that God has performed mir- 
acles through their instrumentality." — Syst. of Theol., 
p. 88. 

As to the images and pictures of the saints by which 
Catholic churches are adorned, their presence there is 
no less rational and conducive to devotion than the ven- 
eration felt for the saints themselves. Protestant opposi- 
tion to them would have been intelligible under the Old 
Law, when there was such extreme danger of infection by 
idolatry from contact with idolaters; but to-day the all- 
pervading influence of idolatry is a thing of the past ; nor 
has the Church of God, at any period of its existence, 
thought that prohibition of images under the old dispen- 
sation had any application to the use of images of Christ 
and His saints under the new. 

That the first Christians were familiar with such repre- 
sentations of holy persons in their churches is plain from 
the testimony of the catacombs, which may be seen by 
any visitor to the Eternal City. On the walls of those 
underground chambers, once used both as cemeteries and 
as churches, are plainly to be seen pictures representing 
Our Lord, His Mother, the apostles, and the saints of the 
Old Testament. In other words, the churches of those 
who were taught by the apostles or their immediate succes- 
sors were, in this respect, exactly similar to Catholic 
churches of the present day. Are Catholic churches the 
less Christian for resembling the churches of the first 
Christians ? 

Even under the Old Law, although it was said, ''Thou 
shalt not make to thyself a graven thing," the prohibition 
was primarily directed against idolatry ; hence, was added, 
"Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them." The ex- 
elusion of idolatry was the one object of the ordinance; 
and where there was no danger of idolatry, to wit, in the 
Holy of Holies, which was completely hidden from the 
multitude, there were images of the cherubim placed over 
the Ark of the Covenant. To-day, in the full exercise of 



Science and Faith 413 

the freedom of the children of God, we can adorn the new 
Ark of the Covenant not only with images of the angels, 
but also with pictures and images of those who are no less 
dear to God. 



SCIENCE AND FAITH 

A Grievous Error. — In a truly scientific mind 
science and faith can not exist without coming 
into collision, for no one who knows and realizes 
the results of scientific research can remain a be- 
liever. 

The Truth. — When Zeno the Eleatic denied the pos- 
sibility of motion, an opponent answered him not by an 
abstract argument, but by giving him a visible example 
of motion: he straightway began to walk about the room. 
In the present article we are going to use an argument 
similar to the one leveled at Zeno's doctrine. We are 
going to point to concrete examples. It is asserted that 
science and faith can never get on well together in a well- 
balanced mind, or that it is impossible to reconcile faith 
and science. We are going to show that science and faith 
can be reconciled by proving that they have been recon- 
ciled in concrete instances — and not in one or two solitary 
instances, but in the case of numerous men of science en- 
joying the highest reputation in the scientific world. We 
shall not seek our example among the smaller scientists, or 
even among those of medium reputation, but among the 
leading lights of scientific research. What is more, we 
shall confine our selection of names to the scientists of the 
nineteenth century. 

In the case of many men of science the world at large 
has known little about their attitude toward faith or reve- 
lation. They have been known simply as scientists, and 
it is only their scientific achievements that have been 
trumpeted abroad; but a study of the matter has made it 
clear that during the nineteenth century the really great 
men of science, with a few exceptions, were believers in 
many of the fundamental truths of the Christian faith. 

We owe it to a German Jesuit that we are able to pro- 
duce abundant and convincing testimony on this point. 
Father Kneller, in his work entitled * ' Christianity and the 



414 Science mid Faith 

Representatives of Modern Science," furnishes a list of 
eminent scientists of the nineteenth century, of all coun- 
tries, and numbering upward of two hundred — all of whom 
were at least believers in a personal God and the spiritual- 
ity of the soul, whilst the vast majority were adherents of 
one or other of the Christian creeds. 

We are aware that such lists may well be regarded with 
suspicion when they are mere lists and nothing else; but 
Father Kneller's work is not a catalogue of names; it is 
a review of the careers of the scientists mentioned; it is 
based on trustworthy authorities and abounds in quota- 
tions which furnish conclusive evidence of the real senti- 
ments of the scientists in question. Although in Father 
Kneller's book there is not a name that does not stand 
for some notable service rendered to science, we shall select 
here only the greater lights. The number in parenthesis 
after each name indicates the date of the person's death. 

Mechanical Theory and Mathematics. — Count von 
Rumford (1814), J. R. Mayer (1878), J. P. Joule (1889), 
G. A. Hirn (1890), W. Rankine (1872), H. von Helm- 
holtz (1894), Sir William Thomson (later Lord Kelvin, 
1907), K. F. Gauss (1855), J. F. Pfaff (1825), A. L. 
Cauchy (1857), V. A. Puiseux (1883), C. Hermite (1901), 
P. S.Laplace (1827). 

Astronomy.— G. Piazzi (1826), A. Secehi (1878), F. 
Cecchi (1887), F. de Vico (1848), Sir John Herschel 
(1871^, U. J. Leverrier (1877), L. Respighi (1889), K. 
Kreil (1862), J. F. Encke (1865). 

Physics. — Electricity: A. Volta (1827), A. M. Ampere 
(1836), M. Faraday (1867), G. S. Ohm (1854), J. C. 
Maxwell (1879), W. Weber (1891) .—Light : A. Fresnel 
(1827), J. Fraunhofer (1826), A. Fizeau (1896), Sir 
George Stokes (1903), Lord Rayleigh (still living). — Mis- 
cellaneous: J. B. Biot (1862), V. Regnault (1878). 

Chemistry. — Sir Humphry Davy (1829), L. Vauquelin 
(1829), L. Thenard (1857), J. B. Dumas (1884), J. von 
Liebig (1873), M. Chevreul (1889), C. Schoenbein (1868). 

Mineralogy.— R. Haiiy (1822), J. von Fuchs (1856), E. 
Mallard (1894). 

Geology.— G. Cuvier (1832), C. Deville (1876), L. de 
Beaumont (1874), J. Barrande (1883), G. Daubree (1896), 
B. d'Omalius (1875), A. Dumont (1857), J. D. Dana 
(1895), Sir William Dawson (1899), K. Bischof (1870), 



Science and Faith 415 

F. Quenstedt (1889), Oswald Heer (1883), B. Studer 
(1887), K. Lossen (1893), W. Waagen (1900). 

Physiology.— J. Miiller (1858), T. Schwann (1882), D. 
Eschricht (1863), A. Volkmann (1877), C. Bernard 
(1878), Sir Charles Bell (1842), L. Pasteur (1895), J. B. 
Carnoy (1899), R. Laennee (1826). 

Zoology and Botany. — C. Ehrenberg (1876), L. Agassiz 
(1873), P. J. Beneden (1894), A. David (1900), K. von 
Martins (1868), Asa Gray (1888), Karl Baer (1876), G. 
J. Romanes (1894). 

Evolution Theory. — J. B. de Lamarck (1829), E. 
Saint-Hilaire (1844), Sir Charles Lyell (1875), and others 
mentioned above. 

Any well-informed reader must see that the above list 
represents the great bulk of scientific achievement in the 
nineteenth century; and yet there is not a single name on 
the list that does not stand for at least the more funda- 
mental beliefs of Christianity. Many of these scientists 
were devout Christians; a very large percentage were 
Catholics, and some of them were priests or monks. This, 
by the way, is a refutation of a certain public pronounce- 
ment that ''scientific eminence among Roman Catholics is 
rare." The statement must be based on a very narrow 
survey of the history of science. 

It will be noticed that the latter half of the century is 
as well represented as the former; and yet it is in the 
latter half that Christianity is supposed to have received 
its death-blow. It was the latter half of the century that 
witnessed the scientific achievements of Lord Kelvin and 
Louis Pasteur. It was only a few years ago that Lord 
Kelvin made the famous public declaration that caused 
such a flutter in anti-Christian circles, to wit, that science 
positively affirmed the existence of a Creator, and that 
science was not antagonistic to religion, but rather a help 
to it. It is only a few years since Pasteur, a devout Cath- 
olic, closed his illustrious career; and it was Pasteur that 
gave the memorable answer to a pupil of his who had 
asked him how it was possible for one who had studied 
and reflected so much to remain a believer in Christianity : 
''It is precisely because I have studied and reflected that 
I have to-day the faith of a Breton ; and had I studied and 
reflected more I should have the faith of a Breton's wife." 

A few of the names on the above list will, it is true, ex- 



416 Science and Faith 

cite the surprise of those who are acquainted with certain 
parts of their writings; and there is no denying that in 
the works of these few there is some downright bad philos- 
ophy; but against this must be weighed the evidence that 
indubitably points to the habitual attitude of the authors' 
minds toward the things unseen, either during the greater 
part of their lives or toward their close. Laplace is a case 
in point. There is nothing to prove that he ever lost his 
hold upon his Catholic beliefs. 

True, there is a story about him which has been thought- 
lessly bandied about, to the effect that during a conversa- 
tion with Napoleon, to whom he had presented one of his 
works, he spoke of the existence of God as being no more 
than a hypothesis. Napoleon had remarked to him: ''New- 
ton in his work speaks of God : I have gone through yours, 
but find no mention of God." "Citizen First Consul," 
Laplace is said to have answered, ''I find no need of that 
hypothesis." Now, be it observed, in the first place, that 
Laplace would never have dared to play the part of a skep- 
tic before Napoleon, who in the days of his power gave 
short shrift to unbelievers. In the second place, when 
Laplace learned that the story was about to appear in a 
printed sketch of his life, he directed a friend of his, Arago 
the scientist, to interest himself in having it omitted. We 
have this from Arago himself, and yet Arago was an un- 
believer. Li the third place, supposing the story to be 
true, a very natural explanation of Laplace's remark is 
found in the difference of opinion existing between him and 
Newton as to the necessity of special divine intervention 
for the ordering of the planetary system as regards the 
number, the size, and the relative distances of the planets 
and satellites and for the prevention of confusion result- 
ing from their movements. The necessity of God's inter- 
vention was maintained by Newton, but denied by Laplace, 
who held that the ordering of the system might result 
from the action of general laws already established. 

*'May not this disposition of the planets," says Laplace, 
*'be itself an effect of the laws of motion, and may not 
the Supreme Intelligence, to whose intervention Newton 
had recourse, have made this orderly disposition depend- 
ent on a phenomenon of a more general character ? ' ' Here 
there is no question of God's existence, but of His special 
intervention for a particular purpose; and here there is 



Science and Faith 417 

probably a key to the anecdote. The ' ' Encyclopedia Britan- 
nica, ' ' in its article on Laplace, observes that in the astron- 
omer 's private correspondence there are scattered remarks 
which are inconsistent with the atheistical opinions with 
which he is so often credited. It is certain that he asked 
for and received the last sacraments before dying, and 
that he expired in the arms of two priests, M. le cure des 
Missions Etrangeres and M. le cure d'Arceuil. 

Karl von Baer's case is no less noteworthy in this con- 
nection. Though at first admitting the force of the argu- 
ment from design for the existence of a personal God, 
he lapsed into pantheism, but in his latter days he re- 
turned to a belief in a personal God. There had always 
been a certain wavering in his pantheism, but the die was 
cast upon his reading a work of Fichte's on German spec- 
ulation. ''I had long believed," he says, ''in the possi- 
bility of reaching through pantheism a unifying concep- 
tion of the universe. Fichte's book taught me better. 
Pantheism won't do." 

Romanes, too, drifted away from his early Christian 
faith, but a little book of his which we have before us 
as we write — ** Thoughts on Religion" — was written for 
the purpose of tracing his progress in returning, as he 
finally did, to his early beliefs. We are assured by his 
editor and friend, Bishop Gore, that he made full and 
open profession of Christianity before his death. 

The geologists and the evolutionists have given special 
scandal to the "orthodox," but many of them, as, for in- 
stance, Lyell the geologist, have not been shaken in their 
religious beliefs. Some have even striven to demonstrate 
the entire consistency of the evolution theory with the 
fundamental doctrines of Christianity. This, we are told 
by Joseph LeConte, has been the special role assumed by 
the American as distinguished from European scientists. 
"My own work," he adds, "has been chiefly in this direc- 
tion." Alfred Russel Wallace, who was associated with 
Darwin in the first propounding of the theory of natu- 
ral selection and whose eminence as a scientist is well 
known, steadily held to the spirituality of the human soul 
and a creative Intelligence in the universe. 

As to Darwin, the protagonist of modern evolution, he 
certainly lost his grasp of Christian truth. He would fain 
have believed, but when thoughts of religion visited hi^ 



418 Science and Faith 

mind he found himself unable to grapple with the sub- 
ject. He did not positively and consistently reject Chris- 
tianity, either on scientific or other grounds ; but, even had 
he done so, it is doubtful whether any importance should 
have been attached to his reasonings on the subject. *'What 
he says in his autobiography about Christianity," remarks 
Eomanes, who knew him thoroughly, ''shows no profund- 
ity of thought in the direction of philosophy or religion. 
His mind was too purely inductive for this." It is clear, 
then, that Darwin's thoughts about religion are useless 
material to the anti-Christian controversialist. (The 
reader will learn much more to the purpose by turning to 
the article "Darwin.") 

Objection. — Whatever may be said about many of the 
great leaders in science, it is notorious that to-day the 
majority of men of science have little or no religious be- 
lief. The fact seems significant, or at least demands an 
explanation. 

Answer. — There is no denying that unbelief has made 
sad inroads among men of science; but in what profes- 
sion has it not? There are scores of reasons why men in 
all walks of life are losing their religious faith — reasons 
that have no connection with their several professions. 
There are infidel lawyers and infidel merchants, and yet 
neither their law nor their merchandise has anything to 
do with their infidelity. The general independence of 
the age and the neglect of solid religious instruction are 
alone sufficient to account for most defections from the 
Faith. We may add to these causes of infidelity the ex- 
clusive absorption in study which is a characteristic of the 
scientific specialist. And once the fashion of skepticism has 
set in, fashion itself becomes a powerful motive for the 
profession of unbelief. True science is not a cause of 
unbelief, but it may easily be used as an excuse after 
faith has been thrown away. 

Physical science has so commanding a position in our 
day that its representatives are regarded by the unthink- 
ing and the ill-informed as authorities on every conceiv- 
able subject, not excluding theology. And yet most of 
the skeptical scientists of the day never give religion more 
than a passing thought and have written on the subject 
little or nothing that is worth reading. In contrast with 



Science and Faith 419 

this apathy or wilful neglect on the part of the unbeliev- 
ing, we find that many of the believing scientists whose 
names are on our list — notably Ampere, Cauchy, Volta, 
and Maxwell — have given years of study both to religion 
and to the religious bearings of scientific truths, and yet 
have been unable to find any mutual repugnance between 
the demonstrations of physical science and the real teach- 
ings of Christian revelation. 

Volta, whose name has passed into the very vocabulary of 
science, once penned the following declaration: *'I have 
always believed and still believe the holy Catholic faith 
to be the one true and infallible religion ; and I constantly 
give thanks to God, who has infused into me this belief, in 
which I desire to live and die, with the firm hope of eter- 
nal life. In this faith I recognize a pure gift of God, a 
supernatural grace. But I have not neglected those hu- 
man means which confirm belief and overthrow such doubts 
as may arise to tempt me. I have given attentive study 
to the foundations of my faith. I have read in the works 
both of defenders and of assailants of the Faith arguments 
for and against it, and have derived thence arguments in 
its favor which render it most acceptable even to the purely 
natural reason and prove it to be such that any mind un- 
perverted by sin and passion, any healthy and generous 
mind, can not but accept and love it. ' ' — Kneller, p. 116 f . 

Maxwell's more colloquial form of confession, made to 
a friend, is no less weighty : "I have read up many queer 
religions: there is nothing like the old thing, after all. 1 
have looked into most philosophical systems, and I have 
seen that none will work without a God." — Kneller, p. 136. 

Moreover, there is a proneness to exaggerate the loss of 
faith occurring among men of science. It is chiefly as 
scientists that they are known to the world at large, and 
men who live in mixed society are reticent on the subject 
of religion. The change that took place in Baer and Ro- 
manes may have its counterpart in the case of many others. 
Certainly Virchow, Du Bois-Reymond, and Wundt experi- 
enced, in the course of their careers, a change of views 
that brought them nearer the truth. The exaggerated im- 
pression as to the number of scientific unbelievers is due 
in great measure to the statements and the living example 
of the popular platform scientists, who are generally not 
the leaders of scientific thought. 



420 Scientific Freedom 

Finally, even though the actual number of scientists 
without faith were doubled or trebled, the thesis we are 
defending would not be weakened in the least. Our aim 
has been to show that if it is maintained, as it frequently 
is, that faith must conflict with science, the position is 
demolished by an appeal to the experience of many emi- 
nent scientists. As a matter of fact, science and faith 
have dwelt in peace in many of the leading scientific minds 
of a century. We have sought out the great minds of the 
scientific world and found that in very many instances in- 
tellectual greatness has gone hand in hand with religious 
faith and fervor. There can be no question here of count- 
ing up so many votes on the one side and so many on the 
other and then deciding by the majority. The vote of a 
single great mind must outweigh those of a score of in- 
ferior minds, and we have seen that many great minds in 
the world of science have held and proclaimed allegiance 
to Christian truth. 



SCIENTIFIC FREEDOM 

A Mistaken View. — The authority claimed by 
the Catholic Church is an obstacle to modern 
scientific progress, its attitude toward physical 
science operating as a clog upon individual re- 
search. 

The Truth. — Some Catholics will perhaps need to be 
assured, on our authority, that there really are persons 
who hold the above view with apparent sincerity. To this 
class of persons scientific research and Catholic authority 
are as hostile to one another as fire and water; and, con- 
sidering how the notion has been inculcated upon them 
from childhood, it is not surprising that they can not see 
things in any other light. 

If any such person should come upon this little book of 
ours, we would ask him to examine carefully into the 
origin of his views on the subject. In the circles in which 
he moves there is probably a traditional opinion about Cath- 
olic authority which effectually blocks out all inquiry into 
the real attitude of the Church toward science. The very 
mention of authority is enough to move the disgust of this 
class of persons. But why this aversion to authority ? Au- 



Scientific Freedom 421 

thority is an element in human life without which life 
would not be worth living. From the cradle to the grave 
we are continually leaning upon the authority of those who 
know more than ourselves. And this is true not only in 
regard to the facts of social and private life, but also in 
regard to the objects of intellectual research. In the mat- 
ter of science and history the great mass of men are de- 
pendent on the authority of the specialist, because he is 
the only one who learns things at first hand. 

The origin of the aversion felt to Catholic authority is 
not far to seek. Authority must be regarded with aver- 
sion by any one who holds that the unaided human intel- 
lect can attain to all truth, and that nothing is truth but 
what it can attain to. But suppose there is an order of 
truths which can not be reached except by divine revela- 
tion, and suppose the revelation has been made: are not 
the paramount claims of such a revelation, and of the 
authority that has it in its keeping, at once manifest ? You 
may not believe in revelation, either as a fact or as a 
possibility ; but there are those that do believe in it. Many 
of the world's brightest intellects, both in the past and in 
our own day, have believed in it. Men of the caliber of 
Cardinal Newman and Leo XIII have been whole-hearted 
believers in revelation. 

It is not our purpose here to prove either the fact or 
the possibility of a revelation, nor, principally, even to 
plead for respect for an authority which is, after all, but 
a consequence of revelation as a fact. The point we aim to 
establish is that, notwithstanding the high claims of the 
Catholic Church — notwithstanding the fact that the Church 
asserts her right to pass sentence upon any so-called scien- 
tific conclusion conflicting with revelation — there is abso- 
lutely nothing to prevent a Catholic from following out 
any line of scientific research, or from drawing conclusions 
which are solidly supported hy well-ascertained facts. 

Within the legitimate domain of any science a Catholic 
may proceed with unfettered freedom, and that for the 
simple reason that he knows that what is revealed to him 
by his telescope or by his microscope can not contradict any 
truth of the supernatural order. Truth can not he at 
variance with truth. By truth he, of course, understands 
genuine truth, and not supposed truth. By scientific truth 
he understands scientifically demonstrated truth, and not 



422 Scientific Freedom 

hypothesis, or crude reasoning upon demonstrated truth. 
He is aware, of course, that facts may be discovered by 
the scientist whose bearing upon revealed truths may not 
at first be easily determined; or he may be aware that 
certain half-demonstrated scientific truths or half-discov- 
ered facts may seem to be inconsistent with certain re- 
ligious dogmas. But he keeps the even tenor of his way, 
confident that when the full truth is known it will be 
found to accord with the teachings of faith. 

And in this he is never disappointed. The advances 
made in the sciences tend to confirm rather than to dis- 
credit Catholic beliefs. Archeological science shows an in- 
creasing tendency to corroborate the narratives of Holy 
Writ. Geology, as more than one geologist has pointed 
out, presents a picture of primitive life on the globe which 
strikingly harmonizes with the order of creative eras ex- 
hibited in the Book of Genesis. Biology and paleontology 
may point with more or less certainty to an evolution of 
species, but they can tell us nothing about the primeval 
species, nor can they say a word for or against creation. 

No, the Catholic man of science need not fear to enter 
any field of research. The solid results of his labors will 
be welcomed at the Vatican no less than in the laboratories 
and lecture-rooms of Paris or Berlin. 

But an ounce of concrete example is oftentimes worth 
more than a pound of general assertion. We need not ask 
any of our readers if they have heard of Louis Pasteur. 
If we found ourselves in an assembly of distinguished scien- 
tists and made the statement that Pasteur was the great- 
est scientist of the nineteenth century, we doubt whether 
any one present would deny it. If deep research, brilliant 
discovery, and enormous practical results furnish any 
criterion of scientific greatness, Pasteur's title to the first 
place in the ranks of the scientific is well certified. But 
Pasteur was a Catholic, a devout Catholic, a Catholic fear- 
less in the profession of his faith. 

Moreover, he had thought out maturely the relations be- 
tween science and revelation, and was convinced that, al- 
though they constituted two distinct worlds of thought, 
they could never come into mutual collision. Truth could 
never contradict truth. But Pasteur is not the only Cath- 
olic scientist who has pursued the work of original re- 
search with untrammeled freedom. If the results of the 



Scientific Freedom 423 

free and independent study of nature made by Catholic 
men of science were subtracted from the present sum 
total of scientific knowledge, science would be thrown back 
at least a century. (See ''Science and Faith.") 

Objection. — But, as a matter of fact, Catholic men of 
science have been condenmed by the Church for scientific 
conclusions which every one admits, and must admit, to- 
day. Witness the case of Galileo. 

Answer. — If there is anything that shows poverty of 
resource in our critics it is their repeated citation of the 
case of Galileo. This is their one venerable weapon, which 
they keep ready for instant use in case the "intolerance'* 
of the Church should come upon the tapis. Even though 
the worst possible case were made out against the Roman 
tribunal concerned, is it not absurd to go back three 
centuries for evidence that will tell against the present 
mind and spirit of the Church? Or, why revert to a 
period when not only the Catholic, but also the Protestant, 
authorities were naturally and justly suspicious of nov- 
elties in science which had points of contact with religion? 
Or, again, why make so much of the condemnation by a 
body of cardinals of propositions that were not really 
demonstrated — a condemnation that was afterward can- 
celed when the demonstration was forthcoming? 

The theory — for it was then only a theory — of the earth 's 
revolution about the sun did not really admit of a demon- 
stration at a time when astronomical science was in so 
crude a state. Had it been strictly demonstrated, Galileo 
would have met with different treatment at the hands of 
the cardinals. Not that the Congregation of the Holy 
Office had any direct concern with any such question of 
physical science; but the question seemed to have biblical 
bearings. To make the sun the immovable center around 
which the earth revolved seemed to contradict the obvious 
and generally received interpretation of certain passages 
in Holy Writ; as, for instance, where Josue is narrated 
to have stopped the sun in its course, or where the Psalms 
speak of the sun as rising in the East and going down in 
the West, and the Fathers of the Holy Office were in duty 
bound to take cognizance of any such novelties of inter- 
pretation. If any such case arose to-day the issue would 
be different. Catholic theologians are agreed that where 
physical science has clearly demonstrated the nature or 



424 Scientific Freedom 

the causes of purely natural phenomena mentioned in the 
Bible, the interpreters of the Bible can not ignore any- 
such demonstration, any more than they can ignore the 
science of philology in interpreting the words of a text 
or in determining the structure of a sentence. 

Did the theologians of Galileo's day hold a different 
view? There is nothing to prove that they did, and there 
is no little reason for thinking they did not. The trutH 
is that it was only then that science was beginning to 
cast doubts upon opinions that had been held for centuries. 
The reader will find it instructive to learn the views of a 
distinguished contemporary of Galileo, a leader among 
theologians and the most trusted adviser of the Pope, to 
wit. Cardinal Bellarmine. The Cardinal defined his at- 
titude toward Copernicanism in terms that prove him to 
have been as modern in his spirit as can well be desired. 
In a letter to Foscarini, a Carmelite friar and an ally of 
Galileo's, at a time when the Galileo question was well 
to the fore, he expresses himself in the following words : 

**If it were solidly demonstrated that the sun was in 
the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, 
and that it is not the sun that revolves about the earth, 
but the earth that revolves around the sun, then we 
should have to behave with much circumspection in 
explaining those passages of Scripture which seem to say 
the contrary f and rather acknowledge that we do not under- 
stand those passages than assert that a thing can he false 
which is demonstrated to he true/' 

If he added the following words, **But I will not be- 
lieve there is any such demonstration until it is shown 
me," he said what would have won the applause of a 
Huxley or of a Tyndall. And the same pair of modern 
scientists would have deemed perfectly reasonable the posi- 
tion explained in the further remarks of the Cardinal : 

''It is not by any means one and the same thing to 
show that on the supposition of the motionless position of 
the sun in the center and the movement of the earth 
through space, the actual phenomena are better explained, 
and to show that as a fact the sun is in the center and the 
earth moves through space." In other words, a hypothesis 
is not necessarily proved to be the correct one because it 
gives a better explanation of certain facts. 

The Cardinal, then, did not consider the theory demon- 



Scientific Freedom 425 

strated; but it is important for us to have learned what 
so influential a member of the Roman court thought should 
be the attitude of the Church in case any such theory were 
demonstrated. 

But there was another aspect of the Galileo controversy 
which must not be left out of sight. The new system had 
arrayed against it the bulk of scientific opinion, as scien- 
tific opinion stood at that date. It was not simply a 
case of science vs. theology ; it was no less a case of science 
vs. science, or at least of scientists vs. scientists. Galileo's 
chief opponents were eminent scientists, who themselves, 
animated by the true spirit of modern discovery, had made 
valuable contributions to scientific knowledge; amongst 
others, Scheiner, one of the discoverers of the spots on the 
sun ; Clavius, surnamed the Euclid of his age ; the astron- 
omer Magini, Grienberger ; and even the English philos- 
opher Francis Bacon, who was so much lauded at a later 
period as the Father of Modern Science. Bacon regarded 
the Copernican system as a convenient mathematical fic- 
tion, useful in calculating and predicting.^ Science itself, 
therefore, rejected the new system as not having produced 
its credentials. Were the cardinals of the Holy Office 
expected to he in advance of the science of their day? 

Objection. — In one respect the Catholic scientist must 
feel not a little hampered. He is much restricted in the 
forming of hypotheses, which have so often opened a path 
to scientific truth. Any hypothesis that excludes creation 
must at once be rejected by the Catholic investigator. 

Answer. — We are dealing with the physical sciences. 
Now, which of the physical sciences, as such, need be con- 
cerned about whether things were created or not? What 
have they to do with questions touching creation? Crea- 
tion, the spirituality and the immortality of the soul, and 
other such questions, are quite beyond the limits of ob- 
servation and experiment, which are the instruments of 
the physical sciences. When the physicist finds himself 
speculating on these subjects, he should remember that he 
is essaying the role of the philosopher, in the higher sense 
of the term. Unfortunately, when scientists of the stamp 
of Haeckel begin to philosophize they abandon the im- 
partial and unemotional temper which we have been taught 
to regard as a characteristic of the scientific mind; and 

iDescript. Glob. Int. c. 6. 



426 Secret Societies 

then it is that they hazard statements about God, creation, 
or the human soul which have no foothold in any science 
known to them. 

As to rational philosophy, as distinguished from natu- 
ral philosophy or natural science, that is a region in which 
hypotheses, especially working hypotheses, can hardly have 
any scope. But here, too, the same law will hold, to wit, 
that if the truth of a proposition is demonstrated it can 
not conflict with revealed truth. But who will presume 
to say that any system of philosophy has demonstrated the 
impossibility of creation or of the immortality of the human 
soul? 

Let any Catholic scientist, therefore, come to the Vati- 
can with a demonstration of any scientific truth, and his 
demonstration will be honored as Copernicanism was 
finally honored when its claims were established. 

SECRET SOCIETIES 

Objection. — Why is the Church opposed to 
secret societies? If individuals may lawfully 
have secrets, why may societies not have them? 

The Answ:ee. — The Church condemns certain societies 
not simply and solely because they have secrets, but be- 
cause of the particular kind of secrecy practised in those 
societies. In some cases, also, she condemns them because 
there is sufficient evidence, as in the case of masonry, that 
secrecy is used as an instrument for the propagation of 
error and for the destruction of all true religion. 

If a Catholic thinks of joining a secret society he must 
know, not only as a Catholic, but simply as a man with 
a conscience, to what sort of secrecy he is going to com- 
mit himself ; and those who have a right to know the state 
of his conscience have also a right to know whether his 
joining that society will be to him a source of spiritual 
harm or to others an occasion of scandal. 

One very objectionable feature of certain secret societies 
is an oath of absolute secrecy. Mindly taken; that is to 
say, without one's knowing what he may be committing 
himself to. A no less objectionable one is the oath of 
absolute and unconditioned obedience, which no one, under 
any circumstances, can conscientiously take. The use of a 



Secret Societies 427 

religious ritual is often a sufficient reason for condemna- 
tion, especially if it be accompanied by the use of symbols 
of a religious character whose meaning is known only to 
higher adepts. Even in many of the less objectionable 
secret societies of the day there are influences constantly 
at work tending to weaken the faith of Catholic members 
and lessen their allegiance to the Church. 

It is partly because of such objectionable elements in 
freemasonry that Catholics are forbidden under pain of 
excommunication to join any masonic organization. The 
Knights of Pythias, the Odd Fellows, and the Sons of 
Temperance are also condemned by the Church. But what 
about other secret societies not thus explicitly condemned? 
Are Catholics free to join them simply because the Church 
has not expressly condemned them ? Not so ; for member- 
ship in them may be a source of harm, and careful inquiry 
should be made into the character and aims of such so- 
cieties and prudent advice sought as to the wisdom of 
actually joining them. The Church and those who exer- 
cise jurisdiction in her name should have every reasonable 
assurance that membership in any given society will not 
prove baneful to the Catholics concerned. 

We shall give the reader a specimen of masonic oaths 
of secrecy. The oath is that of the first degree, taken on 
the Bible. And let it be remembered that the secrets of 
masonry are not known to the great mass of the brethren, 
and that so-called masonic science does not regard the 
Bible as the word of God. The initiate pronounces the 
following formula : "I, in the presence of the Great Archi- 
tect of the Universe ... do hereby and hereon solemnly 
and sincerely swear that I will always hide, conceal, and 
never reveal any part or parts, any point or points of the 
secrets or mysteries of or belonging to Free and Accepted 
Masons in Masonry which may heretofore have been known 
by, shall now or may at any future time he communicated 
to me. These several points I solemnly swear to observe 
under no less penalty than to have my throat cut across, 
my tongue torn out by the root and my body buried in 
the sands of the sea, or the more efficient punishment of 
being branded as a wilfully perjured individual, void of 
all moral worth. So help me God." (Gruber, in Cath. 
Encycl., ''Masonry.") 

No one, be he Christian or Mohammedan, or even Mason, 



428 Self-Denial 

can in conscience pledge himself by promise or by oath 
to any duty or obligation the nature of which he does not 
know. If a Mason has a seared conscience for such mat- 
ters he is an enemy of society and of all honest men. (See 
''Freemasonry.") 

SELF-DENIAL 

Objection. — Self-denial cannot be a virtue. It 
is a repressing of the sensuous inclinations ; and 
yet these inclinations have been implanted in 
our souls by God Himself. 

The Answer. — It is undoubtedly true that these in- 
clinations have been implanted in our natures by God Him- 
self. The only question that concerns us is, why they were 
implanted in our natures. They were not placed there to 
ruUf but to serve. God loves order, and order requires 
that the lower be subject to the higher. The reverse of 
this would be endless disorder. Unfortunately, it so hap- 
pens that the sensuous or lower part of our nature strives 
to assert itself against the higher or rational part. Hence, 
if it is God's will that reason should hold the mastery, 
reason must exert itself in repressing the sensuous appe- 
tites. This is the philosophy of self-denial. 

Self-denial, so far from destroying or rendering useless 
any part of our nature, simply confines the sensuous appe- 
tites within just bounds and then leaves to them the en- 
joyment of a vast range of sensuous yet lawful pleasures. 
But, although the essential aim of self-denial is repression 
and its immediate effect a diminution of pleasure, it really 
secures in the long run, for those who cultivate it, a much 
greater sum of personal happiness than is secured by un- 
restrained indulgence: it saves us from the tyranny of 
passion. 

Even in heaven, after the resurrection, we shall retain 
the sensuous part of our nature, but it will be so com- 
pletely under the dominion of reason — or, rather, it will 
be so entirely absorbed in the divine life of the soul — that 
self-denial will have nothing to act upon. But this state 
is reserved for those only who in this life preserve them- 
selves from all defilement by mortifying their natural in- 
clinations, and thus win a title to the possession of eter- 
nal joys. 



Self-Denial 429 

The so-called healthy life of the senses of modern times 
is simply a sinful subjection of the higher to the lower 
part of our nature. It is a sinful and cowardly yielding 
to natural instincts, unrestrained in many cases even by 
the certain prospect of serious bodily detriment. It knows 
nothing even of the restraints imposed of old by the higher 
type of Epicureanism, which practised a degree of self- 
denial which was seen to be absolutely necessary as a 
means of preventing pleasure from growing sour to the 
taste by reason of its very excess, or from producing after 
effects which would more than outweigh the pleasure of 
indulgence. Pleasure was indeed the ultimate object of 
the Epicurean, but he saw that excess in the desire for 
pleasure was an obstacle to its attainment. ' ' Confine your 
desires to the limits within which you can satisfy them," 
was the maxim of Epicurus. Now, we are not aware that 
this particular phase of Epicureanism has ever been con- 
demned by our modern hedonists; but when Christianity 
comes forward and counsels a restraint of the passions — 
and that, too, in a nobler spirit and with motives more 
elevating — it is scornfully assailed as an inveterate enemy 
of man's happiness. 

The Christian reader need not be reminded that at the 
background of Christian belief and practice in this mat- 
ter there is a group of historical facts vouched for by 
Holy Writ and the Church of God. God was so good as 
to give man, in the beginning, an antidote against con- 
cupiscence, and consequently a preventive of warfare be- 
tween reason and passion. This was one of the privileges 
of the state of primitive innocence. By a special grace, 
reason was perpetually in the ascendant; the passions, 
blind themselves, submitted to the guidance of reason; 
and self-denial was not the irksome or painful task it so 
often proves to-day. It was not long, however, before this 
privileged state was forfeited by man 's transgression ; and 
then for the first time he knew the force and stress of 
concupiscence and felt the necessity of using force to 
subdue it. But God did not leave him to struggle alone. 
Through the Redemption He made available for him an 
abundance of interior grace by which the native powers 
of the will were reinforced and enabled to struggle suc- 
cessfully on the side of reason. The result of such suc- 
cessful struggling is the reduction, and in some cases all 



430 Socialism 

but the annihilation, of concupiscence, and the consequent 
establishment of the reign of peace in the soul. Peace is 
indeed the inseparable companion of self-denial. 



SOCIALISM 

I. ITS ECONOMIC FALLACIES 

A Socialist Argument. — The workingman is 
the sole producer of wealth ; therefore he should 
be the sole owner of it. And yet the capitalist 
appropriates nearly the whole product of the 
workingman's labor. The only remedy for this 
abuse is the socialistic commonwealth, each 
member of which will be insured the possession 
of what he produces. 

The Answer. — That labor is the only producer of wealth 
is one of the fundamental errors of socialism; and as this 
is the very corner-stone of socialism as a popular move- 
ment, the movement has no reason for existing if the 
principle is false. Certain socialist writers have been 
forced to admit its falsity ; and yet they continue to preach 
the doctrine to the mass of their followers. 

The aim of socialism is to revolutionize society by plac- 
ing it on an industrial basis and by making the working- 
men the owners and administrators of all wealth. And 
how is this to be accomplished? By taking out of the 
hands of individuals and transferring to the commonwealth 
all the sources and means of production — mines, lands, fac- 
tories, machinery, raw materials, and finished products, to- 
gether with the entire business of transportation, distribu- 
tion, and exchange. Private property will be confined to 
the compensation received for labor performed. Each 
member of the community must contribute his quota of 
manual labor, and each will receive from the public store- 
house or from the public treasury what his labor is worth. 
All distinctions will be leveled. A doctrine of equal rights 
of the strictest type will be carried into effect. Men, 
women, and children will have the same rights and, as 
far as possible, the same duties. 

But advanced socialistic theory does not stop here. So- 
ciety will be still more thoroughly revolutionized. Mar- 



Its Economic Fallacies 431 

riage will be placed on a new basis. Men and women will 
remain united in marriage only as long as either or both 
of the parties to a marriage desire. Family life will be 
abolished. Children will never learn to know or love their 
parents, for as soon as they see the light of day they 
will be taken, like orphans or foundlings, and reared under 
the motherly and fatherly supervision of the State. Do- 
mestic happiness, we are told, will be merged in the happi- 
ness of the community. Family affection will be super- 
seded by a love of humanity. The commonwealth will be 
a democracy. The elected representatives of the people 
will administer the affairs of the State under the people's 
supervision. Government and law will be reduced to the 
minimum. 

But what is the motive or the necessity for so drastic 
a change? The socialists answer that such a revolution is 
necessary because under the present dominance of private 
capital the many are becoming poorer and the few be- 
coming richer. In former times the means of production 
belonged more generally to the individual workman; what 
he produced was his and no one disputed his title to it; 
but to-day the means of production have passed into the 
hands of a comparative few. One man thus equipped em- 
ploys hundreds or thousands under a system of combined 
labor which enables him to produce, by means of a hun- 
dred pairs of hands, enormously more than was possible 
in times past. With this fact as a basis, the socialist ar- 
gues thus: If a hundred workmen produce ten times 
as much to-day as they could have produced two centuries 
ago, they are entitled to ten times as much compensation. 
The only way to secure such compensation is by making 
the workingmen themselves the owners of the means of 
production. If they fail then to get their due, the fault 
is theirs. Formed into a commonwealth in which each 
of its members will be obliged to work, in order to con- 
tribute to the common store, they will severally receive the 
full value of their labor, or at least as large a percentage 
of it as can be afforded from the general fund. Private 
capital, then, as being the great source of industrial evils, 
is to be done away with in favor of collective ownership. 

The account we have given of socialism is based upon 
standard socialistic literature. We mean such works as 
those of Marx, Engels, Ljebknecht, Bebel, Carpenter, Bax, 



432 Socialism 

and others, whose writings are zealously circulated among 
the "comrades" and recommended in the booklets of social- 
istic organizations. If a socialist makes any attempt to 
disavow any of the above doctrines, he can easily be 
brought to book. 

And now what are we to think of all this ? The socialists 
profess to have a reason for the faith that is in them. Let 
us see if it holds water. 

They take their stand upon the principle that every one 
is entitled to be the owner of what he produces. Let us 
grant the principle — but what then ? Well, say the social- 
ists, is it not evident that a hundred men in any industrial 
establishment produce vastly more wealth than they would 
have produced a couple of centuries ago ? And where does 
the excess go? Into the pockets of the capitalists; and 
they have not moved a little finger in the production of 
it. The poor toiler gets barely enough to pay his rent and 
feed his wife and little ones. Meantime, the capitalist goes 
spinning about in his motor-car or sailing to the ends of 
the earth in his palatial steam-yacht. Socialist orators are 
wont to add to this picture some vivid touches that never 
fail to move the indignation of their hearers. 

Now, it seems to us, that any fairly intelligent work- 
ingman ought to be able to detect the fallacy of the prin- 
ciple that labor is the only producer of wealth. In the 
production of wealth there are other agencies at work more 
eifective than labor. What is the real reason why a work- 
man can turn out twenty dollars' worth of shoes in a day, 
whereas formerly he could not have made a single pair of 
shoes worth five dollars? The answer is obvious. In the 
old days they knew none but the simplest methods of pro- 
duction. To-day the methods of production are more elab- 
orate and immensely more effective. The distinguishing 
features of the system are chiefly these: the use of ma- 
chinery, the uniting of many hands under one general 
direction, the division of labor, the utilization of the physi- 
cal sciences, superior management, and, finally, the posses- 
sion of capital, which is constantly renewing the sources 
whence it is derived. 

It is, therefore, the perfection of the system that mul- 
tiplies the productive7iess of the workman. The amount 
of manual labor is actually less than formerly, hut its 
efficiency has been raised a himdredfold; and the change 



Its Economic Fallacies 433 

is due to the system. Therefore, it is not the workingman 
that produces wealth, hut the system and the workingman 
combined. 

But to what do we owe the system ? We owe it to thought, 
science, genius, superior power of administration, and other 
such causes, but not to the labor of the workingman. To 
adopt Mallock's terminology, we owe it to ability as dis- 
tinguished from labor. If this be conceded, it is mani- 
festly absurd to attribute a surplus value to labor of 
which the fruits are seized by one who does nothing. The 
truth of the matter is that labor borrows a new and extraor- 
dinary power from ability ; and if there is any truth in the 
socialistic principle that every man is the rightful owner 
of what he produces, surely the able minds that have added 
so enormously to the productiveness of labor should re- 
ceive the larger share of the reward. 

Now, this is so obvious that the more shrewd and intel- 
ligent socialist writers have had to acknowledge it. En- 
countering educated criticism, they have been forced to 
see the necessity of reconstructing the theory of socialism, 
in this as in many other points; and yet they have not 
the courage to go before any meeting of their ' * comrades ' ' 
and tell them that, after all, workingmen are not the only 
producers of wealth. In such meetings they do precisely 
what Mr. Wilshire does in his pamphlet, "Why the Work- 
ingman Should be a Socialist" : "You know, or you ought 
to know, that you alone produce all the good things of 
life ; and 3^ou know, or you ought to know, that by so simple 
a process as that of casting your ballot intelligently you 
will be able, etc." Or they address the man in the street 
as the author of the socialist catechism quoted by Mr. 
Mallock speaks to budding socialists: "Who creates all 
wealth? The working class. Who are the workers? Men 
who work for wages." 

Men who work for wages! Isn't there a shade of am- 
biguity in the phrase ? We had thought that the socialistic 
movement had only workingmen in view — that is to say, 
manual laborers, including mechanics. But they are not 
the only workers who receive wages. Clerks, bookkeepers, 
reporters, editors, all work for wages. And are these the 
downtrodden classes for whom the socialists draw the tear 
of sympathy? Some of our readers may think us hyper- 
critical. "Salary" is the polite term used for compensa- 



434 Socialism 

tion received by the higher type of workers. We must cau- 
tion our readers that no such distinction is intended. Mr. 
Wilshire, who is regarded as an authority among socialists, 
takes Mr. Mallock to task for supposing that socialists mean 
by ' ' workingmen " and ''laborers" only manual workers. 
They include all men, he tells us, who contribute to pro- 
duction; inventors, like Edison, and great industrial cap- 
tains, even though millionaires! And yet it is quite im- 
possible that in the leaflet quoted above he could have 
meant any workingmen but manual laborers. Otherwise 
we might ask him with Mr. Mallock, "Does Mr. Wilshire 
seriously wish us to believe that he is telling Mr. Edison 
that 'if he will only cast his ballot intelligently' he will 
be able to treble his income at the expense of richer men ? ' ' 

It is only too evident that leaders of this class mean 
one thing when addressing manual laborers and another 
when dealing with educated critics. 

The truth is that socialist thinkers have begun to see 
not only that room must be found in their commonwealth 
for men of exceptional ability, but also that exceptional 
compensation must be given them for their superior ser- 
vices. Now, this means that some will be wealthy and 
others comparatively poor. And the conclusion is frankly 
accepted by more than one socialist authority. But its 
consequences for socialism seem to be ignored. Socialism 
aims at abolishing all distinction of classes, and here we 
have a distinction of classes regarded as inevitable — a dis- 
tinction, too, of the most invidious kind — one based on the 
possession of material goods. If envy for the rich plays so 
important a part in the present movement, how will citi- 
zens of the humbler sort in the new commonwealth endure 
the presence of a class whose exceptional gains and excep- 
tional prosperity will be thrust upon their notice every 
hour of the day? 

It must be conceded, then, that ability would have to 
be stimulated by the prospect of exceptional rewards. As 
for still higher motives, such as a disinterested devotion to 
one's fellow-men, these, under any system, may actuate a 
choice few ; but no one except an extreme enthusiast would 
suppose that whole classes of men would be stimulated to 
deeds of self-abnegation by such a phantom idea as Human- 
ity in General. Even the Christian virtue of charity, em- 
bodied though it is in the beautiful earthly life of the 



Its Economic Fallacies 435 

Son of God, has not so effectually raised the world to so 
high a level of self-obliteration as the socialists propose 
to do by the spread of their peculiar ideas. They fancy 
that when the world is converted to socialism it will find 
itself automatically rid of the old Adam. Self will be 
sunk in a love of humanity. Artists will sing with as 
little hope of gain as nightingales. An inventor who has 
labored for years at a new piece of mechanism will make a 
present of it to the public treasury, and then be lost in 
the ranks of his fellow-workers. 

And how are they preparing workingmen for this reign 
of unselfishness? Is it not by exciting their greed? Is 
it not by telling them, and falsely telling them, that they 
are the only producers of wealth, and that they should 
seize what is theirs? Is it not by holding out to them the 
prospect of personal possessions and personal prosperity 
increased at least tenfold in the commonwealth they are 
going to rear upon the ruins of capitalism? 

We are confident that the great mass of English-speaking 
workingmen are too shrewd to be deceived by any sucK 
quack system of economics, and that they will see that 
in any commonwealth some distinction of classes is un- 
avoidable. Nature itself, as well as the essential condi- 
tions of human life, will range men in higher and lower 
social strata. The great problem, therefore, is not how to 
abolish classes, but how to bring them into harmony; and 
this with a view to creating the highest sum of happiness 
for all classes. 

Such is the charlatan character exhibited by socialism 
in its more popular aspect. There is a more dignified phase 
of the system which is no less unsound. "Scientific So- 
cialism" is a phrase that has done yeoman service among 
those who are taken by high-sounding designations. The 
root principles of the so-called science must be sought for 
in its theory of value. 

Marx distinguishes two kinds of value: use value and 
exchange value. The use value of a thing is that which 
it has as ministering to human needs and desires. Its 
exchange value is its worth as an object of barter, or its 
value in the market. The use value of a pair of shoes 
is the utility of the shoes in protecting the feet of the 
wearer. If the same pair of shoes be exchanged for ten 
pounds of butter, that quantity of butter represents the 



436 Socialism 

exchange value of the shoes. And here we must intro- 
duce to the reader a novel principle of socialist economy, 
which is that the total exchange value of a commodity 
is to be measured solely by the amount of labor involved 
in its production. The proposition is so ridiculous that 
even a child could refute it. The labor of a lifetime might 
be expended on an object without adding to its exchange 
value. The thing produced must be useful, or at least 
in some way desirable. No dairyman would exchange a 
quarter of a pound of rancid butter for even a dozen 
pairs of paper shoes, no matter how much labor had been 
expended on their making. Why are certain kinds of wood 
— say, mahogany or ebony — valued, either in the raw state 
or in manufactured articles ? It is surely because of their 
superior value as supplying the needs or otherwise satis- 
fying the desires of the purchaser. But it is useless to 
multiply examples of commodities that are valued for their 
use, quite irrespective of the amount of labor bestowed 
upon their making. Labor has its value, but it is not the 
only factor that goes to the production of exchange value. 

From the theory of value is derived the theory of surplus 
value, which the socialists make the immediate basis of 
their practical demands. It turns upon the market value 
of human labor. A man's labor-capacity may be re- 
garded as a commodity brought to the labor-market. 7^ A 
workman exchanges his labor-capacity for a sum of money, 
or his wages. The exchange value of labor, say the social- 
ists, must be determined by the same standard as that of 
a pair of shoes or of a pound of butter. It is represented 
by the amount of labor that has produced it. But the 
immediate producers of labor-capacity are food and the 
other necessaries of life ; and they, in turn, derive all their 
value from the amount of labor involved in their produc- 
tion or preparation. Hence, if a man's maintenance costs 
a dollar a day, a dollar represents the exchange value of the 
labor-capacity which he places at his employer 's disposal. 

Now, under the present system, as the socialists argue, 
only a fraction of the workman's time is consumed in 
producing that dollar's worth of commodities for his em- 
ployer. The time required for producing it is called the 
necessary labor time. The remaining time yields the work- 
ingman nothing and is a source of pure gain to the em- 



Its Economic Fallacies 437 

ployer. The value of the labor performed after the nec- 
essary labor time is called by socialists the surplus value. 
It is this that creates capital and produces untold wealth 
for the great leaders of industry. Socialists admit that 
there is no injustice done the workingman inasmuch as 
his labor-capacity is worth a dollar and a dollar is what 
he receives. And yet he must labor beyond the necessary 
labor time, producing wealth for others and getting none 
of it himself. The fault, they say, lies not so much with 
the capitalist as with the system. Change the system and 
transfer the means of production to the workingmen as 
a body, divide the proceeds among them after deducting 
what is needed for the continuance of trade and the con- 
ducting of the commonwealth, and then the nearest ap- 
proach will have been made to a man's receiving back as 
much as he has given. 

Thus far the socialist reasoner. What are we to think 
of this fine-spun theory? Our space will not permit more 
than a brief exposure of the fallacy of the argument ; but 
no more is needed. 

We have seen how worthless is the theory of value. 
Things produced do not derive their exchange value from 
labor. The theory of surplus value is no less absurd. It 
is supremely absurd, in the first place, to reckon the value 
of a man's labor-capacity by the cost of his maintenance. 
Food and other material things contribute, of course, to 
the production of labor-capacity, but it would be absurd 
to attempt to establish an equation thus : so much food, etc., 
=so much labor capacity. So much food does produce so 
much brawn — though the ratio varies with the indi- 
vidual; but brawn is not brain; nor is it skill, or in- 
dustry, or power of application ; and yet all these qualities 
go to the making of a good workman. It is a mistake, 
therefore, to suppose that labor-capacity can be measured 
by cost of maintenance. 

No less absurd is the idea of necessary labor time. There 
is no ground for asserting that there is any necessary time 
as distinguished from surplus time, or that under the 
present system the value of a man's labor is necessarily 
greater than what he gets for it. What does the manual 
worker really contribute to production? The answer to 
this questions brings us back to a point we have already 



438 Socialism 

developed. A hundred workmen organized under capital 
do, in some sense, produce immensely more than would 
be possible if they worked separately and without such 
organization; but the difference is due precisely to the 
organization and to the other elements of the modern sys- 
tem, in which the laborer is a comparatively insignificant 
factor, and to the perfection of which he has contributed 
absolutely nothing. How utterly unreasonable, then, is the 
assertion that the workingman is compelled to donate to 
the capitalist nearly the whole of the fruits of his labor>* 

We are not disposed to ignore the real abuses of capital- 
istic industry. We are aware that although the lot of 
workingman, generally, has been vastly improved, there 
are still classes of workers who are defrauded and victim- 
ized by their employers ; but we are not without hope that 
their grievances may be remedied by legitimate means. Let 
them use the just means that have succeeded in the past, 
and some hope of improvement will appear. If one half 
the propaganda devoted to communistic schemes had been 
diverted into more practical channels, socialism would not 
have the pretext on which it leans to-day for aiming to 
revolutionize the industrial world and with it society in 
general. As a matter of fact, socialists have done little or 
nothing to improve the lot of the workingman. 

We confess we should be delighted to see workingmen in 
general receiving a larger share of the public wealth, which 
they certainly help to produce ; but it is exceedingly ques- 
tionable whether a much larger share would make for the 
working-man's genuine happiness and the higher good of 
society. We should be no less delighted to see the working- 
man, after spending a reasonable time in manual labor, de- 
voting his leisure to the cultivation of his mental faculties 
and to healthy amusement. In the abstract, there is nothing 
incompatible between working at the loom during a part 
of the day and enjoying the products of the fine arts during 
the remainder. The only question is whether and to what 
extent it is practicable. Under socialism all this and much 
more is promised, but unless socialism in practice is much 
better than socialism in theory, it is a promise which can 
never be fulfilled. 



Us Philosophy of History 439 

SOCIALISM 

II. ITS PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY 

Socialistic Delusions. — "Two great discover- 
ies, the materialistic conception of history and 
the revealing of the secret of capitalistic produc- 
tion by means of surplus value, we owe to Marx. 
Through them socialism has become a science." 
— Frederick Engels. 

The Truth. — In the palmiest days of science no body of 
doctrine was called scientific unless its conclusions were 
well supported by their premises. In our day an oracular 
style and an air of profound thought are sufficient creden- 
tials for the winning of scientific honors. Conspicuous 
among the pseudo-philosophers of the age is this self- 
same Karl Marx, a taste of whose scientific economics we 
have had in another article. (See ''Socialism I — Its Eco- 
nomic Fallacies.") 

German philosophers sink their shafts deep, even when 
boring in the wrong place. The reader must not suppose 
that ' ' scientific ' ' socialism, conceived as it was in the brain 
of a Marx, could ever have confined itself to the immediate 
field of practical economics. It goes much deeper — it pro- 
fesses to bring us back to the beginning of things. But, 
unfortunately, we fail to discern there the real beginning: 
scientific socialism is essentially atheistic. Marx and his 
fellow-prophet Engels, and socialistic philosophers gener- 
ally, are of much the same school as Haeckel of Jena, about 
whom the reader will learn something in other parts of 
this volume. (See "Evolution" and Haeckel.") 

The ultimate basis of scientific socialism is what is known 
as the materialistic conception of history. It is the doctrine 
of materialistic monism applied in the domain of economics. 
Marx and his followers hold that nothing exists but matter. 
Mind is but a modification of matter. Thought, feeling, 
consciousness, are mere reflection from the material world. 
A spiritual and immortal soul is an obsolete fiction. God, 
creation, providence are respectable myths. Matter and 
motion sum up the history of the universe and of man. 

The next link in this chain of speculation is the doctrine 
that the universe and all that it contains is perpetually 
changing. Man, with his thoughts, his principles and his 



440 Socialism 

moral standards, his social institutions, his beliefs, his 
worship, is moving on like the rest of the universe. There 
is nothing fixed or stable. There are no immutable ideas, 
no eternal truths. Moreover, a man's environment is the 
one determining factor in the details of his intellectual life. 
The human will is thus fated to act by a blind irresistible 
impulse. 

But what has this to do with economics, or with social- 
ism? It has much to do with them in the mind of Marx 
and his associates ; for the one law of change and evolution, 
they tell us, operates in the world of production as it does 
elsewhere. The great aim of the socialist philosopher is to 
show how the law of change is going to land socialists one 
day in the possession of power. Assuming the role of 
prophet, the philosopher points to the land of promise 
which must eventually be reached by the multitude in the 
desert. And he endeavors to unfold the process of social 
evolution in some such way as this : The whole of human 
life is ruled and shaped by methods of production and ex- 
change. The dominant ideas and intellectual tendencies of 
the race depend primarily on the way in which men pro- 
duce and barter what is needed for the perpetuation and 
well-being of their kind. With every change in the eco- 
nomic basis of life there is a resultant change in the social 
and intellectual life of men — in their mental life, in their 
social institutions, in their religion. 

Thus two distinct orders of things are recognized: the 
order of economic facts and the order of ideas. Now these 
two orders, socialists tell us, do not run together with the 
exactness of clockwork. The one may lag behind the other ; 
and for a time, whilst the economic order is developing on 
new lines, the order of ideas happens to remain unchanged. 
Consequently a state of tension ensues between the two 
orders, till finally it reaches the snapping-point, and then — | 
a revolution, resulting in the adjustment of the order of ^ 
ideas to the order of facts. 

And now let us see how the socialists apply this precious 
bit of philosophy to the present posture of affairs. In the 
past few centuries the industrial world has been under- 
going a revolution. The individual laborer working on his 
own account is comparatively rare. His place has been 
taken by the employee who works for wages. In all the 
industries the productiveness of each pair of hands has 



Its Philosophy of History 441 

been vastly increased. Not that the human hand has 
acquired any new deftness. On the contrary, manual skill 
has decreased rather than increased. It is rather the per- 
fection of the modern system of production, of which the 
human hand is an instrument, and a comparatively insig- 
nificant instrument, that enables a hundred pairs of hands 
to-day to produce on so vast a scale, and at the same time 
enables the owners of industries to reap such enormous 
profits. 

Now, according to socialistic doctrine (refuted in ''So- 
cialism I. — Its Economic Fallacies") the profit really be- 
longs to the workingmen, though it nearly all passes into 
the pocket of the capitalist. The result, we are told, is 
ever-increasing poverty for the working class. Hence the 
struggle between the classes — a phenomenon, we are as- 
sured, which not only has occurred frequently, but has 
really formed the warp and woof of human history. Ac- 
companying the present class-struggle is the glaring con- 
trast between the condition of the industrial world and its 
intellectual environment. This means, in the view of the 
socialist, that the present condition of the industrial world 
calls for and will inevitably bring about a revolution in 
which the ideas and institutions which the mass of civilized 
men believe to repose upon eternal truths or upon divine 
appointment will come to naught. Rights of property, the 
right of inheritance, the rights of the family, marriage, 
authority and obedience, even religious belief and wor- 
ship — all these must go, as unsuited to the conditions under 
which man must work out his earthly destiny. Here, 
surely we have socialism coming down to men's business 
and bosoms. 

Reputation. — The Materialistic Conception of History. 
— This doctrine, so far as it is identical with materialistic 
monism in general, we have already refuted. (See "Mind 
and Matter," "Soul," "Materialism," "Evolution," 
"God's Existence.") 

We have shown that matter is not the only form of being. 
Immaterial mind and soul are as real as matter, and the 
primal and eternal Being is spiritual. What we wish to 
emphasize here is that the doctrine is held by nearly all 
leading socialists, and books in which it is set forth as truth 
are circulated among the rank and file. Crass materialism 
is the daily bread of those who feed their minds upon such 



442 Socialism 

literature. This fact is alone sufficient to determine the 
bearings of socialism on religion. 

The Law of Change. — According to this doctrine, noth- 
ing is fixed or permanent, even in the sphere of thought and 
science, or of religion. This sweeping assertion is lightly 
and gratuitously made; and indeed its falsity has been 
recognized by the more reflecting socialistic writers. Some 
have admitted that mathematics and the sciences dependent 
upon mathematics have to do with fixed ideas and immu- 
table truths. A large concession, surely; for the exact 
sciences cover a large part of the territory of human knowl- 
edge, and they are based, moreover, on principles which 
belong to the still larger province of mental philosophy. 
Other socialists have frankly admitted that, in general, the 
realm of thought is independent of the material conditions 
of life, and that permanent principles of thought have 
modified the conditions of life. 

The Economic Basis of Human Life. — Here the absurd- 
ity of the materialistic view reaches its height. We are 
told that upon modes of production, buying and selling 
depends the whole structure of society as well as the whole 
world of ideas. Among other things, the dominant phi- 
losophy and religion of a country will depend upon its 
economic tendencies. Most of our readers will be aston- 
ished at so bold a generalization, even as coming from a 
socialist. If there is anything to be learned from history 
it is surely the fact that most great movements — social, 
political, and religious — have had an origin quite independ- 
ent of economic conditions. The growth of ideas, the sud- 
den appearance of geniuses and of saints, personal and 
national ambition, faith and fanaticism — these are the main 
factors that have changed the face of society, quite irre- 
spective of the material conditions of life. Christianity, 
early in its career, found a home in every clime and flour- 
ished under every system of economics. The conquests of 
Alexander, which so profoundly influenced the course of 
history, had little or no connection with the economic state 
of society. Mohammedanism, the Crusades, the Renais- 
sance, the Protestant Revolution, were independent of the 
conditions of commerce and production. 

But our best allies in this contention are in the camp of 
the socialists. The ecclesia docens of socialism is split, on 
this and on other subjects, more hopelessly than it dare 



Its Philosophy of History 443 

acknowledge to the mass of its adherents. The revisionists 
form a powerful section of the party, devoted to the modi- 
fication or the entire repudiation of the extravagances of 
socialistic teaching. If retained within the party, they 
must inevitably bring it to its ruin. Concerning the doc- 
trine of the economic basis of society the teaching of the 
"revisionists" runs counter to that of the pure Marxian 
section of the party. Bax, Bernstein, L. Woltman, and 
others have acknowledged in their writings that the realm 
of thought is to a great extent independent of the economic 
world. 

Let the reader not fail to grasp the significance of this 
admission. Taking their stand upon the doctrine we have 
been refuting, socialist leaders assure their '* comrades" in 
the ranks that the new economics will one day adjust all 
things to themselves. But if the leaders are themselves un- 
learning the materialistic philosophy which is at the basis 
of these predictions the question now is, how long will the 
leaders be able to sustain the equivocal role of thinking 
one thing and preaching another. 

Economic Contrasts and Class Struggles. — Socialists, re- 
peating by rote the words of their father and prophet, tell 
us that the history of human society is simply the history 
of struggles between the classes. Here they are reading 
their one idea into all history. Class struggles are indeed 
prominent in history, but they are not the only struggles 
on record; nor can it be proved that the majority of 
struggles are in any way even reducible to class struggles. 
The great historical events cited in a preceding paragraph, 
events involving many an important struggle, were not 
connected with the mutual opposition of classes. In 
many an important struggle members of the two 
great classes which socialists have in mind fought side by 
side. 

Nor is it true that such class struggles as have occurred 
have had their origin in the glaring discordance existing 
between the state of economics and the general state of 
society. The discordance has had no existence outside the 
brains of a Marx or an Engels. Who could ever hope to 
prove that the ideas and institutions of society as at present 
constituted are at variance with the actual system of pro- 
duction and exchange? There is much, of course, in those 
ideas and institutions which is in utter discordance with 



444 Socialism 

the hopes and beliefs of Socialists; but that is another 
matter. 

The Theory of Increasing Pauperization. — The same 
recklessness of assertion is shown in the dictum that under 
the domination of capital there has been a steady and in- 
creasing tendency to pauperism, whilst, on the other hand, 
all wealth is gradually passing into the hands of the few. 
The Erfurt Platform of 1891, which is the present gospel 
of the party, plainly sets forth the assumption that the 
present system means for workingmen a "a growing in- 
crease of the insecurity of their existence, of misery, op- 
pression, enslavement, debasement, and exploitation." • 

Now, as regards the validity of the pauperization theory, 
it must, of course, be admitted that the lot of certain classes 
of workingmen has been made hard by small wages, long 
hours of work, and high cost of living ; but to assert that 
the lot of workingmen in general has been growing ever 
more miserable, and to appeal to the feelings of working- 
men by drawing pictures of misery tending to starvation 
but destined to end in revolution, is to act the part of a 
demagogue. Statistics and general experience contradict 
the assertion. The material prosperity of workingmen has 
been steadily increasing; and although colossal fortunes 
have been acquired by the few, the intermediate grades of 
society have also been growing in wealth. 

But here again the revisionists among the socialists ally 
themselves with men of sense and reject the pauperization 
theory. Opposition to it was well to the fore in the Social- 
ist Congress of Ltibeck in 1901, when Bebel, the recent 
leader of the party, felt himself obliged to repudiate 
the doctrine taken in an absolute sense. Whilst admitting 
that, absolutely speaking, the workingman is better off 
to-day than in past generations, he maintained that 
relatively he was not. Quoting from Lassalle, he said : "If 
you compare what the rich class has with what the working 
class has to-day, then the gap between the working class 
and the rich class to-day is greater than ever before." 
What does this mean but that the working class is not 
getting rich as quickly as the non-working class? Their 
condition is vastly improved, but not in the same propor- 
tion as that of their masters. So that now it is not pity for 
the poor, hut envy toward the rich, that is supposed to fire 
the socialist breast. 



Its Philosophy of History 445 

But this false pauperization theory has done splendid 
service in gatherings of workingmen, and doubtless will 
continue to do so for many a day. Workingmen will be 
told, as they are in a socialist booklet that lies before us, 
''You are living in a slavery which is in many respects 
worse than that which prevailed in the South before 1863." 
This, then, is the doctrine reserved for the masses. In 
the upper strata of socialism reason and reflection are work- 
ing their beneficial effects, but the greatest care is taken 
that not even a modicum of reason or reflection shall filter 
down among the rough-handed sons of toil: otherwise the 
game would be up. 

The Iron Law of Wages. — The doctrine of the iron law 
of wages, which is now abandoned by socialists, is men- 
tioned here only as an additional illustration of the unstable 
character of socialistic theory. According to this law, the 
wages of workingmen vary from high to low and from 
low to high, but never remain for any length of time much 
higher than will enable a workingman to obtain the barest 
necessaries of life; and hence poverty is his eternal lot. 
The theory is contrary to facts and now occupies a place 
in the crowded lumber-room of socialistic science. 

Men of reflection in the higher walks of socialism doubt- 
less see with no small degree of vexation how unfortunate 
a thing it was that their system had its origin in the brain 
of a philosopher. Whilst pressing forward to the goal of 
collectivism they feel themselves seriously hampered by 
the load of ''scientific" rubbish which their early precep- 
tors have clapped upon their backs ; and so they fling their 
pet doctrines, one after another, to the winds. It remains 
to be seen, now that socialistic thought is going to pieces, 
how long the farce can be maintained by which the rank 
and file promoters of the movement are drugged with a 
doctrine in which their leaders no longer believe. 

The reader will have noticed that we have given little 
direct refutation of the fanciful dogmas of the Marxian 
philosophy. That task we have left mainly to the socialists 
themselves. 



446 Socialism 

SOCIALISM 

III. ITS IMPRACTICABILITY 

A Dream. — Socialism will turn a complex 
problem into a very simple one. Instead of at- 
tempting to secure justice for all classes it will 
abolish all distinction of classes. All must be 
workers. The one class, the people, will own 
its own industries, work for itself, and pay itself 
according to the value of the work done. 

The Eeality. — Such is the vision that presents itself to 
the rank and file of socialism ; but the leaders should by this 
time know that it is a delusion and a snare. Socialist 
writers, though occupied chiefly with fine-spun theories, 
which they deal out to the multitude garnished with proph- 
ecies and denunciations (here they feel quite at home), 
become painfully aware, when they enter the region of 
practical socialism, that their path is a thorny one. They 
cannot help seeing the innumerable dilEficulties that must 
be met when they attempt to apply their theories to the 
stubborn actualities of life. No wonder that certain lead- 
ing socialists, in the stress of controversy, have made con- 
cessions which are fatal to their system as a whole. Some 
of these concessions we have considered in our other articles 
on socialism. 

The task of reducing all men to one level, the task of fit- 
ting society into an artificial framework of governmental 
and industrial activity, the task of controlling the count- 
less personal peculiarities of living human beings, and of 
subduing personal greed, personal ambition, and personal 
antipathies; these are some of the tasks which socialists 
have merrily set about accomplishing. Scarcely less diffi- 
cult will be the problem of providing needed scope to per- 
sonal independence, personal initiative, and just personal 
claims to exceptional rewards for exceptional services. 
Difficulties such as these start up at every turn. Hence it 
is that no two socialists agree on important points con- 
nected with the construction of the new commonwealth. 
But for that they are not to blame — the task is an insuper- 
able one. The blame rests with socialism. 

Socialism is not a mere system of political philosoph3^ 
It is a system of practical politics, for the realization of 



Its Bearings on Religion 447 

which our citizens are asked to give their votes. And what 
they are asked to vote for is a chimerical scheme of govern- 
ment based upon a bad philosophy, and one so imprac- 
ticable that it would take much more than the wisdom of 
a Solon or a Solomon to fit it to the needs of our common 
human nature. 

There is one feature of socialistic speculation which 
stamps it as utterly visionary. When socialists are pressed 
hard by objections drawn from the ineradicable tendencies 
of human nature or of human society they have the cool- 
ness to tell us that by the time the new system has been 
matured a moral transformation will have come over the 
race ! Socialism, by some sort of Orphean music of its own, 
will have charmed men into a renunciation of self and into 
a willingness to work for the general good of the race. Ap- 
plied science, moreover, will have rid labor of all its dis- 
agreeable features, and men will take to work as boys now 
take to play. This is the stuff with which the "comrades'* 
in the ranks are deluded by their leaders. This is what 
the compatriots of Marx and Bebel might well call schw'dr- 
merei, or wrong-headed enthusiasm. 

SOCIALISM 

IV. ITS BEARINGS ON RELIGION 

A Snare. — Religion is a private affair. The 
social democracy is concerned "solely with the 
purely secular questions connected with the 
struggle for economic, social, and political 
emancipation. Social democracy never asks its 
followers what religious opinions they hold ; and 
in general its position toward religion is that 
of a neutral." (Von VoUmar, in the Reichstag, 
Dec. 5, 1900.) 

The Real Attitude of Socialism Toward Religion. — 
"Religion is a private affair." This is a sop thrown to the 
unwary. Socialists know full well that their system is 
very much concerned with religion, and especially with the 
Christian religion. Its aims and its teachings, as well as 
the explicit statements of its leaders, prove it to be at vari- 
ance with the spirit and the teachings of the Christian 
religion. 



448 Socialism 

Christian teaching recognizes the right of private and 
individual ownership ; socialism ignores it, denying as it 
does a man's right to acquire property, to enjoy the income 
it yields, to enhance its value, or freely to dispose of it. 
Socialism, if it had the reins of power in its hands, would 
make a general seizure of personal and real estate in defi- 
ance of the will of the possessor, not by an act of eminent 
domain, such as obtains under the present system; for it 
would not include a full, direct, and immediate indemnifi- 
cation. It would entirely annul the private ownership of 
estates, against all natural right. But as the actual posses- 
sors of property would not submit to the change of their 
own free will, they would be compelled to do so by force. 

And force is really contemplated by socialist leaders. 
"In most countries of Europe," said Marx in the Congress 
of The Hague, "violence must be the lever of our social 
reform. We must finally have recourse to violence in order 
to establish the rule of labor." That an armed revolution 
will be resorted to has either been intimated or explicitly 
stated by socialist speakers and writers, as, for instance, by 
Liebknecht in the Socialist Convention of Ghent, in 1877. 
"The Army," he says, "will, after all, consist of the sons of 
the people whom we are gaining over by our revolutionary 
propaganda . . . "When the day shall have arrived rifles 
and cannon will of their own accord face about to pros- 
trate the foes of the socialist people. ' ' The same sentiment 
has been so often re-echoed in socialistic journals that it 
needs no illustration here. 

It is a common Christian tenet that marriage, which is 
a permanent union of husband and wife, was instituted by 
God, and that the wife is subject to the husband. The 
family, too, according to the Christian conception, possesses 
inalienable rights, which the State is bound to respect. In 
a socialist commonwealth the State would be a supreme 
dictator in such matters. Matrimony would be succeeded 
by free love — State-regulated free love, if you will, but not 
marriage. The wife would owe no obedience to her hus- 
band. She would be in all things his equal. Even in the 
"demands for the present," set forth in the Erfurt Plat- 
form, "the abolition of all laws which subordinate woman 
to man in public and private life" is insisted upon. 

Another demand of the Erfurt Platform is that the 
schools be secularized; which means that the teaching of 



Its Bearings on Religion 449 

religion be entirely banished from them. But it is a dis- 
tinctively Christian principle that secular education should 
never be divorced from religious training; and a constant 
effort to reduce the principle to practice is a distinguishing 
mark of Catholicism — the form of Christianity that social- 
ists will chiefly have to reckon with. Socialism sees in the 
Christian school its most formidable foe; and hence even 
in its ''demands for the present" it includes, by way of 
preparing the soil for socialism, the abolition of religious 
instruction in the common schools. 

The dictum that religion is a purely private affair is 
both false and anti-Christian. Religion would perish if it 
were locked away in the human heart and could find no 
external expression. Christianity, moreover, is necessarily 
and by divine institution a religion that enjoins public as 
well as private worship. It would consequently be a very 
undesirable element in a socialistic commonwealth and 
would not be tolerated any longer than could be helped. 
Christianity must have its public places of worship, its 
rectories, its seminaries, its novitiates, its schools, its 
asylums — and all these things suppose material resources 
and must rest upon an independent financial basis. But 
under socialism all material treasure would belong to the 
people at large ; and the people — or the populace, or per- 
haps even the rabble — would have the only say in the distri- 
bution of it. Now, let any reader of these pages fancy a 
socialistic commonwealth donating a sum of money for the 
building of a Catholic Church ! Furthermore, a Christian 
clergy should be free and untrammeled in the exercise of its 
ministry. The public offices of religion, attendance upon 
the sick and the dying, and a score of other essential 
duties, should remove them from the chance dictation of 
those who set no value upon their sacred functions, and 
should free them from the obligation of manual labor which 
socialists would impose upon all members of the common- 
wealth without any distinction. 

Socialist leaders differ, it is true, in the attitude they 
assume before the public in regard to religion. Some take 
the bull by the horns and make a frank acknowledgment 
of what is really held by all leading socialists. The So- 
cialist Party of Great Britain, in a recent manifesto, de- 
clared that '^no man can he consistently both a socialist 
and a Christian.'* George D. Herron, Secretary to the 



450 Socialism 

International Congress of Socialists, makes a clean breast 
of his sentiments. *' Christianity to-day," he tells us, 
'^ stands for what is lowest and basest in life. It is the 
most degrading of all our institutions, and the most brutal- 
izing in its effects on the common life. For socialism to 
use it, to make terms with it, or to let it make approaches 
to the socialist movement, is for socialism to take Judas 
to its bosom." E. Belfort Bax, a leading English socialist, 
informs us that "Socialism has been described as a new 
conception of the world, presenting itself in industry as co- 
operative communism, in politics as international repub- 
licanism, in religion as atheistic humanism." 

These later authorities on socialism only re-echo the senti- 
ments of the patriarchs of the movement. Karl Marx, the 
father of modern socialism, once wrote: "Religion is the 
opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illu- 
sory happiness of the people signifies their demand for a 
real happiness." Frederick Engels acknowledged that 
"religion will be forbidden." "Religion," he thinks, "is 
nothing but the fantastic reflection in men's mind of the 
external forces which dominate their every -day existence." 
Joseph Dietzgen declared that "socialism and Christiayiity 
differ from each other as the day does from the night," 
and that "social democracy has decided against religion." 
And August Bebel : ' * In politics we social democrats pro- 
fess republicanism, in economics socialism, in religion 
atheism." And Liebknecht: "It is our duty as socialists 
to root out the faith in God with all our zeal, nor is one 
worthy of the name who does not consecrate himself to 
the spread of atheism." 

Another class of socialist writers and speakers content 
themselves with harping on the assurance that socialism 
has nothing to do with religion and that religion is alto- 
gether a private affair with which socialism has no inten- 
tion of interfering. We have seen the hollowness of such 
pretensions. A third class quietly assume that, in respect 
to religion, things will settle themselves. Bellamy, who 
made formal profession of socialism in his later writings, 
takes it for granted that by the time socialism is at the 
top religion will have undergone so complete a change as 
to need neither priest nor altar nor congregation. A man 's 
religious wants will be confined to religious instruction or 
religious conference; and he can gratify himself in that 



I 



Its Bearings on Religion 451 

matter by establishing telephonic communication with 
some oracle of religious wisdom whose reputation will have 
attracted to him a multitude of hearers. If a man feels 
any need of priest or sacrifice or public place of worship, 
he can have them to his heart's content. On this last point 
the writer must have been jesting. We can well believe, 
however, that in proportion as socialism gains ground the 
world will feel small need of priest or sacrifice or place of 
worship. The influence of socialism must necessarily work 
in that direction, and that means the gradual destruction 
of Christianity. Bellamy's speculations on the future of 
religion are much of a piece with those of other socialistic 
writers. 

But what better could be expected of practical socialism 
when the philosophy on which it is built is materialistic 
and atheistic to the core? We are dealing with socialism 
of the Marxian type, for of this type the socialism that 
is at our doors professes to be. But at the very root of the 
Marxian system is the theory of the materialistic origin 
and evolution of the universe — a theory which rules God 
and the soul out of existence. With the atheism of this 
theory all the leaders of socialism, as we have seen from 
abundant evidence, are imbued. If there are any socialists 
who are not atheists it is because they are made to swallow 
the bolus of Marxism without knowing what they are 
swallowing. 

We have said enough, and more than enough, to show the 
anti-religious character of socialism. But now, a last word 
to the Christian, especially the Catholic workingman: 
Don't allow yourself to be induced to join any party or 
organization bearing the name of ' ' socialist. ' ' Reform and 
improvement are one thing ; socialism, atheism, and revolu- 
tion are quite another. You may not believe in the extreme 
doctrines of socialism, but by helping to swell its ranks you 
are helping to popularize a movement which is essentially 
godless. You are strengthening the hands of men who are 
bent on destroying Christianity root and branch. 

You may be tempted by the promises of socialism, but 
remember that socialism is but a revamping of old com- 
munistic schemes which have had their day and from which 
all sensible men have held aloof. You feel drawn to men 
who profess a sympathy for the toiling poor, but the truth 
is that socialists feel less pity for the poor than envy toward 



452 Soul 

the rich. All solid improvement in the condition of the 
workingman has been brought about by means with which 
socialists are out of sympathy. Honest agitation and well- 
directed practical movements have done something; so- 
cialism has done nothing. Nor is it likely to effect any- 
thing in the future. No movement based upon any such 
flimsy theorizing as we have considered in the course of 
these articles can ever prevail against the good sense of 
the people. The very leaders of socialism will differ, as 
they have differed, on important points of theory and 
practice, and difference of opinion will lead to the split- 
ting up of the party. Trades-unions, in proportion as they 
are ruled by socialists, will be used as catspaws to further 
the ends of socialism. Therefore, keep the socialists out of 
your trades-unions, and there will be no danger of your 
aims being confounded with theirs. 



SOUL 

Objection. — Observation and experiment have 
failed to discover the existence of a soul in man. 
The so-called spiritual acts that are supposed to 
prove the existence of a spiritual soul have been 
discovered to be modifications of the cell-tissue 
of the brain. 

The Answer. — Are observation and experiment the only 
means of acquiring knowledge? They form the basis of 
the physical sciences ; but are there no other sciences ? Are 
not logic, rational philosophy, and mathematics sciences as 
well as physics, chemistry, and physiology? Even in the 
latter sciences observation and experiment are only the 
beginning of a process of induction which is brought to a 
close by deduction or inference. This may seem too obvious 
to need mentioning, but the exclusive dominion of observa- 
tion and experiment in the realm of science has been so 
often assumed, or practically held in our time, that we 
deem it necessary to emphasize the part played by deduc- 
tion even in scientific research. 

Very little reflection is needed to see that the acts of the 
mind are of a different order from those of the bodily 
senses and of the imagination. Thought is immaterial, 
supersensible, spiritual. Even when we think of material 



Soul 453 

things we think of them in an immaterial manner. This 
is evident from the way in which we designate them, re- 
ferring them as we do to certain classes or species. We 
predicate the universal of the individual. We say, ''This 
is a tree," ''That is a house," which is equivalent to say- 
ing, ' ' That belongs to the class of things called trees, etc. ' ' 
The mind has, therefore, certain immaterial and general 
concepts, such as tree — not this or that tree, but the species 
tree — horse, man, animal. These universal and immaterial 
concepts are the product of the mind and, formally, exist 
only in the mind. They are called abstractions, because the 
mind, in forming them, abstracts or withdraws its atten- 
tion from the individual object and considers only the 
class or species to which it belongs. 

Such is the spiritual alchemy by which the mind acts 
upon the things of sense and imagination and transforms 
them into the things of the mind. These universal notions 
diifer from impressions produced upon the senses, and even 
from pictures of the imagination, both of which are con- 
fined in each case to the particular and the individual. 
My general or abstract notion tree is not identical with the 
image of any particular tree which I happen to be thinking 
of at the moment. It may be applied to any tree. 

Now, we conclude that if the mind is able to think of 
things in an immaterial or spiritual way, it must itself be 
spiritual, and the soul, of which it is a faculty, must also 
be spiritual. The argument grows stronger when we con- 
sider the purer forms of abstraction, which get furthest 
away from concrete existences of any kind, material or 
spiritual ; such, for example, as the general ideas of virtue, 
vice, truth, falsity, right, obligation, power, possibility, 
being. It is impossible to explain by the materialistic 
theory we are refuting such expressions as * ' can, " " must, ' ' 
"might," and "ought," connoting possibility, necessity, 
or obligation. Those four monosyllables represent ideas. 
No mere picture-making faculty, such as the imagination, 
could ever do justice to them in its attempt to represent 
them. They pass beyond the limits of the sensible and the 
concrete. 

Universal ideas have so much reality that they can be 
made the subject of thought and discourse as distinct im- 
material entities. Not that they have any existence out- 
side the mind such as Plato imagined. They represent 



454 Soul 

things outside the mind, but only under some universal 
aspect. Formally, and in themselves, they are the things 
of the mind; but as such they are realities, and not less 
so than the things we see, feel, and touch. To deny their 
reality is to deny the reality of science, which is 
wholly made up either of abstract ideas or of universal 
formulas. 

Nevertheless, there are those who deny the existence of 
universal ideas. Some object to them as being airy noth- 
ings. Ideas, they tell us, should stand for objective reali- 
ties in the order of existing things, but there is nothing 
in that order resembling a universal. Our answer, in the 
first place, is that universals are realities themselves, but 
of the immaterial order. In the second place, they repre- 
sent that objective reality which consists in the identity 
of nature of many things belonging to the same class or 
species ; as, for instance, the humanity which is common to 
all human beings. This it converts into a universal notion 
which it predicates of all members of the species. Such is 
the basis of all true science, which sees the general law in 
the particular instance. 

Others regard universal ideas as convenient fictions — 
a sort of mental algebra, whose formulae are generalized 
for convenience' sake. Abstractions, they say, are only 
symbols indicating that we have noticed points of resem- 
blance in things that differ. To get, for instance, what is 
called the idea ''horse," we simply observe a number of 
horses, and then, recollecting our experience and having 
a confused phantasm of horses in the imagination, we con- 
fine our attention to the points in which they all agree and 
which mark off the horse as distinct from other animals. 
This single impression of likeness left on the imagination 
we represent by the term "horse." Here, we are told, 
there is no more universality than there is in comparing 
a man's face with its portrait on canvas. 

Thus far the objection : it carries with it its own refuta- 
tion. For how is it possible to confine the attention to points 
of resemblance and exclude points of difference unless by 
the aid of a faculty which is independent of the individual 
and the material ? Sense and imagination are pinned to the 
single objects which they represent and have no power 
of passing from one object to another for purposes of com- 
parison. In the mind, on the other hand, there is a tran- 



Soul 455 

scendent activity which makes it rise superior to material 
and individual conditions. 

The process described in the objection may possibly 
be a horse's way of knowing things, but it is not a man's. 
A horse, after some experience of dogs, possibly has in his 
imagination a confused image of dogs (with accompanying 
feelings, mostly unpleasant), and every new member of the 
canine species brings the image (and by association, the 
feelings) to the surface of consciousness; and then follow 
the usual external marks of recognition. But the horse's 
master has a much superior knowledge of dogs. The man, 
like the horse, has seen many dogs in his time; and like 
the horse he may have a confused phantasm of dogs in his 
imagination, to which he relates every new dog he meets; 
but he possesses a faculty which passes beyond the limits 
of sense and imagination. These latter faculties are but 
picture-making faculties. The pictures may be either suc- 
cessive or simultaneous and confused, but they can never 
represent anything but single objects. Now let us suppose 
that the man undertakes to write a book on the dog : is the 
subject of the book a confused mass of phantasms of dogs? 
Surely not ; it is the dog, not dogs. By the superior power 
of mind the writer will be enabled to review his successive 
impressions of dogs, note the various points of identity 
and difference existing between individual dogs, and draw 
his general conclusions. But general conclusions are gen- 
eral propositions; and even though they represented no 
reality of any sort, do they not argue certain mental proc- 
esses of composing, dividing, and comparing which ex- 
ceed the powers of any sensitive organ or of any sensitive 
faculty? Such processes are evidenced even in our daily 
use of human language. 

But there is another faculty which furnishes a no less 
cogent proof of the immateriality of the soul ; namely, the 
will. This faculty possesses freedom of action — a fact that 
may be proved by any one and at any hour of the day. 
The very fact that it acts upon motives; that it waits till 
it sees a reason for acting ; that it passes from one insuffi- 
cient reason to another till it finds an adequate reason for 
deciding, proves that it is master of its actions. Such free- 
dom can not belong to material things. The action of 
matter is fixed by law. Gravitation, chemical affinities, and 
the like, act always in the same way, and the scientist in 



456 Spiritism 

his laboratory would be surprised to find them varying in 
their action. But the soul is free and self-determining, 
and consequently immaterial and spiritual. 

Thinking and willing are not, then, modifications of the 
tissue of the brain. Brain action does indeed accompany 
every act of thought and volition but only accompanies it, 
and is not identical with it. Sensible images also accom- 
pany those spiritual acts, but are not identical with them. 
The senses and the sensitive appetites of the pure animal 
nature range among natural objects with an activity which, 
up to a certain point, resembles that of man ; but where it 
is a question of reviewing one's experiences, classifying, 
generalizing, reducing to science, then higher or spiritual 
powers must be brought into requisition, which powers 
must, of course, belong to a soul that is spiritual. 

SPIRITISM 

It is contended in favor of spiritism that the 
phenomena which it presents are a plain matter 
of observation and evidence and are attested by 
numerous and trustworthy witnesses. They are 
to be accepted as any other facts are accepted for 
which we have the evidence of our senses; but 
if they are accepted they will revolutionize re- 
ligious thought. 

Facts of a striking nature are undoubtedly exhibited at 
spiritistic seances; but are the facts, in their substance, 
such as they are believed to be by spiritists ? Do they pro- 
ceed from the agency of disembodied spirits? And what 
are Christians, especially Catholics, to think of them 1 Be- 
fore answering these questions let us cast a glance at the 
origin and history of spiritism. 

In one form or other spiritism is at least as old as the 
scriptural story of Saul and the Witch of Endor; but in 
its present phase it dates from a little more than sixty 
years ago, and it had its origin in America. In 1848, at 
Hydesville, N. Y., two sisters, Margaretta and Mary Fox, 
girls of twelve and fifteen respectively, professed to have 
a means of communicating with the souls of the dead. The 
story as told by themselves was that they had heard some 
mysterious rappings, which they had thought might pro- 



Spiritism 457 

ceed from the spirit of a man who had been murdered in 
the same house. They afterward discovered that the noises 
could be used as a code of signals in communicating with 
the souls of the dead. It was agreed between the girls and 
their new acquaintances in the other world that when the 
spirits were questioned the answer "Yes" should be in- 
dicated by one rap, "No" by three, and "Doubtful" or 
"Wait" by two. Later on, the Fox family removed to 
Rochester, N. Y., and here it was that spiritism as a system 
took shape. 

The girls gave exhibitions of their powers, acting the 
part of "mediums," i.e., persons professing to be able to 
produce spiritistic manifestations. Spiritism became the 
sensation of the period. It soon spread from America to 
England, from England to the Continent. Mediums arose 
in every part of the world, and to the rappings were added 
other manifestations even more strange. The spirits showed 
their presence by the turning and tilting of tables, by ring- 
ing bells and by playing on musical instruments. Under 
the action of the spirits bodies were altered in weight, a 
touch of the hand was enough to move heavy bodies from 
their places, human beings were raised in the air, phan- 
tom forms and faces appeared. Particular spirits were 
invoked and made to answer questions. Secrets were re- 
vealed, and predictions were made that afterward proved 
true. As all the world knows, these wonders have con- 
tinued down to the present day. 

Such is the story as it might be told by a spiritist; 
but the reality of these phenomena, and still more their 
significance are matters demanding serious investigation. 
In the early days of spiritism men of science either laughed 
or looked askance at the pretensions of spiritists, but the 
progress of events in the spiritistic world ultimately obliged 
them to face about and consent to examine into the reported 
facts as they would into any other class of phenomena. The 
Church and her theologians are necessarily interested in 
a movement which has important bearings on the souls 
of the living. The alleged phenomena have accordingly 
been tested and scrutinized by many who greatly differ 
from one another in their point of view and in the spirit in 
which they approach the subject. It would be quite prema- 
ture to attempt to set forth the resultant of these con- 
verging lines of investigation ; though it must be said that 



458 Spiritism 

the scientists have been steadily veering round to the 
recognition of a certain number of facts for which there 
is no scientific explanation and which seem to be due to 
some preternatural causation. The results of these studies, 
immature as they are, will justify us, if we mistake not, 
in making the following observations: 

1. There has always been a strong presumption estab- 
lished against spiritism, as, indeed, against most forms of 
occultism, by the fact that the phenomena take place only 
under set conditions. There must be a medium present; 
darkness is desirable; a certain apparatus is used, draped 
tables, curtains, and what not. When the performance 
fails, the medium has an excuse pat : there is some one in 
the audience whose lack of sympathy exercises an adverse 
influence or the medium's powers have undergone a mo- 
mentary eclipse ! In a word, there is much that savors of 
the tricks of the ordinary conjurer. But the successes and 
the failures of the mediums are explained by a crude but 
pretentious philosophy, which among other things speaks 
of an astral body — something intermediate between spirit 
and gross matter — ^which in each sensitive subject is the 
active and passive principle of spiritistic experiences, and 
upon the condition of which depends the degree of success 
of the manifestations. 

We have a secondary motive in mentioning the material 
and mechanical accompaniments of spiritistic displays. 
Spiritists of our day have had the presumption to measure 
their psychic achievements against the wonderful deeds 
of the Saviour of the world ; but what an immense contrast 
between the staginess of spiritism and the simple grandeur 
of those manifestations of the supernatural recorded in the 
four Gospels. In the latter case the wonder in each 
instance was wrought by a single word, or by the touch of 
a hand. Miracles of the most stupendous kind were worked 
in open daylight, in the presence of thousands, and their 
number was past all reckoning. 

2. Fraud has very frequently been detected in the per- 
formances of mediums; in fact, the majority of mediums 
have met with little reverses of the kind but have after- 
ward mounted the platform with the greatest apparent 
serenity. Spiritism made its very debut by a piece of 
roguery. The Fox sisters, mentioned above, were twice 
detected in imposture, and full details of the frauds prac- 



Spiritism 459 

tised by them were afterward given in a written deposition, 
signed by a lady who was a marriage relation of the girls, 
and presented to the magistrates of the town in which she 
lived. According to this statement, the mysterious raps 
were produced by a peculiar movement of the toes. The 
deponent gave an illustration of the trick, which she had 
learned from the two young adepts. The Fox girls have had 
many a successor in the practice of this species of roguery, 
and hence it is not surprising that spiritists, as a rule, 
try to avoid the searchlight of scientific scrutiny. Apart 
from fraud, many of the phenomena are plainly attribut- 
able to hallucination, whilst some of the more marvelous 
stories — amongst others one relating how a certain English 
medium actually floated in the air — ^turn out to be stories 
of the type of the Three Black Crows. 

3. But after due allowance has been made for fraud, 
hallucination, and exaggerated reporting, known or sus- 
pected, there is a considerable residue of well-observed 
phenomena baffling all attempts to explain them by natural 
laws. There is no dearth of hypotheses offered in explana- 
tion of them, but these are mostly based on a false philoso- 
phy of spiritual and material substance. The '* astral 
body*' (or the ''perispirit") has played a prominent part 
in such hypotheses. According to some spiritists, the astral 
body may detach itself from the visible body and be 
brought into communication with the astral bodies of other 
persons, including those of the dead, who are supposed to 
have carried their astral element with them beyond the 
grave. There is no foundation in fact for the assumption 
of any such agent as the astral body; but, of course, an 
Arabian Night's Tale had to be invented to account for 
the mysterious by those who ignore the Christian point of 
view in the matter of ghostly apparitions. 

Perhaps equally unsound is the hypothesis of those who 
attempt to account for the facts by the agency of certain 
subconscious or subliminal powers, of the existence of 
which, at least in certain classes of persons, there seems to 
be no doubt in many minds. The subconscious or sub- 
liminal memory — whether the faculty be thus properly 
designated or not — is described as a mysterious storehouse 
of impressions once received, but received, strange to say, 
without the subject's knowledge. In a state of hypnosis 
or in a spiritistic trance, the unsuspected treasures of the 



460 Spiritism 

memory are brought to the surface, and there is a mar- 
velous manifestation of knowledge which was thought to 
be quite beyond the range of the person's powers or ex- 
perience. To account for the utterances of mediums at such 
moments some investigators hold, or suggest, that when 
the subliminal activities are set in motion in the medium 
connection is made, through them, between the medium's 
mind and that of some other person, present or absent, and 
that what he gives forth as communications from the spirits 
are really the thoughts of living human beings. The reader 
may set his own valuation upon this explanation; remem- 
bering, however, that theories relating to subconscious 
memory and such other capabilities are in too crude a 
state to be accepted as scientific. 

4. As to the main question, whether there is any real 
communication with intelligences of another world. Catho- 
lics as well as others can form their opinions according to 
the evidence. It is quite in accord with Catholic teaching 
to believe that spirits mingle in the affairs of men; but 
there are spirits and spirits — there are spirits good and 
bad. Now, of one thing we can rest assured, that, consider- 
ing the circumstances connected with spiritistic manifesta- 
tions, it is inconceivable that either God or His good spirits 
(including the souls of the just) can have anything to do 
with such performances. Spiritism thrives upon idle and 
even criminal curiosity, and its exhibitions have been 
marked by triviality, frivolity, and moral grossness, whilst 
the moral and physical effects they produce upon the medi- 
ums and their sitters are notoriously bad. 

The literature of the subject abounds in cases of ruined 
lives due to spiritistic practices. *'Ten thousand people," 
wrote Dr. Forbes Winslow as far back as 1877, **are at the 
present time confined in lunatic asylums on account of 
having tampered with the supernatural." (Quoted from 
Raupert's ''Modern Spiritism.") Moreover, the supposed 
spirits often utter contradictory statements on matters of 
religion, and deny articles of the Christian faith. Hence, 
the only conclusion that a Catholic can draw is that if any 
spirits are concerned in these transactions, they are un- 
doubtedly evil spirits, and that spiritism, whether its adepts 
are aware of it or not, is nothing less than commerce with 
the devil. The very fact of its professing to have a free 



Spiritism 461 

entree into the world of spirits is enough to condemn it 
in the eyes of all true Christians. 

As to the belief of spiritists that their mediums hold 
communication with the souls of the dead and that the 
souls of particular persons are identified in such manifes- 
tations, the evidence furnished is of the most untrust- 
worthy kind and has never been subjected to any very 
rigorous tests. Catholics are, of course, aware that God 
has at times permitted the souls of the departed to appear 
under visible forms, but always for purposes worthy of 
His infinite holiness. It is, therefore, quite impossible that 
the souls of the just should have any participation in spir- 
itistic doings. What the devils may do with the souls of 
the damned in connection with spiritism is a matter be- 
yond our ken. 

Amongst the worst features of spiritism is one that is 
ominous of mischief in the future. Spiritism has been 
made a religion, and it aims at revolutionizing the religious 
beliefs of the world. It professes to have its revelation, 
derived from communications with spirits; though it is 
considerably baffled in its attempts to piece together the 
scattered fragments of information received and shape 
them into a consistent and comprehensive body of doctrine. 
They are learning by experience what it is to have to do 
with the Father of Lies. 

Such being the real character of spiritism, little need 
be said as to what should be the practical behavior of Catho- 
lics in regard to it. In the very nature of the case, it is 
grievously sinful to have any part or share in spiritistic 
practices. Even to be present at spiritistic seances is, ordi- 
narily, sinful, as being an occasion either of harm to the 
person present or of scandal to others. For Catholics it 
should be enough to know that spiritism is under the ban 
of the Church. The Roman authorities have more than once 
condemned its practices, and the Second Plenary Council 
of Baltimore, after a scathing denunciation of them, ex- 
horts the faithful not to favor or abet them, directly or 
indirectly, and not to be present, even out of curiosity, at 
spiritistic gatherings. 



462 Spontaneous Generation 

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION 

An Argument. — There was a time when no 
living thing, plant or animal, existed on the 
earth. Therefore, when living things appeared 
they must have been evolved out of non-living 
matter ; the organic must have grown out of the 
inorganic. 

The Answer. — To the extreme evolutionist the above 
argument seems conclusive, but only because he assumes 
as true two things that have never been proved, to wit, 
that creation is inadmissible and that evolution is the all- 
sufficient explanation of all phenomena. Let us see if we 
can give the reader a fair idea of the bearings of the ques- 
tion and of its importance to the Christian apologist. 

It is a matter of common knowledge that most living 
things with which we are familiar come, either directly or 
indirectly, from other living things. A chicken is produced 
from an egg which was laid by another chicken; an oak 
grows from an acorn which once grew on another oak. 
Life is derived from life. Neither chickens nor oaks are 
produced from stones. Now this is the same thing as say- 
ing that organic matter is not produced by inorganic. 
Organic is the same as living matter; inorganic is inani- 
mate matter. 

The two are widely apart in respect to origin, structure, 
and mode of action. Everything that has life — every plant, 
every animal — has a structure that makes it essentially 
different from a stone, a mineral, or a clod of earth. It has 
organs, that is to say, parts which are adapted, each in its 
own way, to the performance of certain functions. A hu- 
man being, for instance, has organs of sight, hearing, and 
smell, as well as a heart, lungs, and digestive organs. 

The way in which living things grow and develop is also 
peculiar. They have a way of building themselves up out 
of small beginnings; and this they do by the action of an 
inherent vital principle which enables them to take to them- 
selves even inorganic matter and convert it into their own 
living substance. Beginning with a mere speck — a cell — 
they put forth other cells and form a cellular tissue, and 
are finally developed into the perfect plant or animal. 

The developing power in each case does not work at hap- 



I 



Spontaneous Generation 463 

hazard and produce now one thing, now another — at one 
time a rose-bush, at another an apple-tree : each germ pro- 
duces invariably one distinct species of living being, and 
always the same species from which it has itself sprung. 
All these characteristics of organic beings mark them off 
as quite distinct from inorganic. 

Such is the nature and such the mode of action of the 
living beings known to man. But is there no exception to 
the rule ? Are not certain well-known living creatures pro- 
duced spontaneously by dead matter? 

Down to a century or two ago there was a universal be- 
lief that decayed animal or vegetable matter had the power, 
under certain conditions, of producing, without germ, cell, 
egg, or anything of the kind, certain living beings, of which 
specimens could be seen in decayed meat or cheese. The 
revelations of the microscope erected this popular belief 
into something more than a belief with many scientists of 
the last century. At last the whole scientific world was 
set agog by the question whether at least certain forms of 
life could not be produced from inorganic matter. 

A brilliant series of experiments threw some light on the 
subject but failed to convince, one way or the other. At 
last Pasteur entered the field. He was persuaded that the 
animalcules produced by dead matter were formed from 
germs derived from the atmosphere, which germs had, of 
course, been produced by living creatures. The experi- 
ments he set on foot must be numbered among the 
triumphs of modern science. They had this result, that 
spontaneous generation was henceforth regarded as a myth. 
The animalcules found in dead matter were found to be 
hatched from germs conveyed through the atmosphere. 

Even Huxley, in summing up the results of these inves- 
tigations, says: ''For my own part, I conceive that, with 
the particulars of M. Pasteur's experiments before us, we 
can not fail to arrive at his conclusions, and that the doc- 
trine of spontaneous generation has received a final coup 
de grace/' {On the Origin of Species, p. 79.) 

That was one phase of the controversy; but in our day 
we have to deal with another. Extreme evolutionists are 
naturally interested in the subject. Without spontaneous 
generation evolution, as they conceive it, would have been 
an impossibility. They hold that all life, including the 
intellectual life of man, has been evolved out of inorganic 



464 Spontaneous Generation 

matter. Ignoring creation, they believe that all things have 
been evolved from the simplest inorganic elements by the 
laws of matter. They hold with most scientists that at a 
certain period, when the earth was in an igneous state, no 
living thing could have existed upon it. Therefore, they 
conclude, life, when it first appeared, must have sprung 
from inanimate matter. 

Of late years a hypothesis has been started which at- 
tempts to account for the existence of life on the earth by 
supposing that in some remote age the earth received 
organic germs from some other planet. Now, apart from 
the consideration that, in all probability, life would have 
been as little possible on any other planet as on ours, and 
the further consideration that to shift the more immediate 
origin of life from our planet to another is not to settle 
the main question; namely, whether life can spring from 
inanimate matter — the hypothesis in question need not, and 
in fact does not, affect the position of the extreme evolu- 
tionist, who takes such high ground as to make it unneces- 
sary to stoop to the consideration of any fact or of any 
hypothesis militating against his pet theory. He is wedded 
to universal evolution, and universal evolution postulates 
spontaneous generation, for otherwise it would be impos- 
sible to account for the appearance of life on the earth. 
Neither science nor common experience gives him any 
encouragement; but it does not matter. Evolution is a 
fact — therefore spontaneous generation is a fact. Huxley, 
though apparently rejoicing at the results of Pasteur's 
experiments, saw that spontaneous generation was neces- 
sarily involved in the evolution theory to which he clung 
and that to accept the one was to accept the other; so 
he accepted both. 

Evolutionists of this type should naturally be disheart- 
ened in their attempt to bridge over the gap between living 
and non-living matter without admitting a Creator; but 
they have a way of keeping up their courage. They make 
the most devout acts of faith in universal evolution ; and to 
faith is added hope; and hope imparts a sort of mental 
exaltation which expresses itself in words of prophecy. 
This unscientific state of mind they exhibit both in their 
books and in their popular lectures; and they do so, in 
many cases, with all the more assurance as they know that 



Spontaneous Generation 465 

their words will be taken by many as uttered in the name 
of Science — a word of magic power in our day. 

With evolutionists of the Haeckelian type it is a matter of 
reckless and triumphant assertion; with those of the Hux- 
ley pattern it is a matter of cool-headed but confident 
*' philosophical faith" based on "analogy." When a man 
of Huxley's knowledge and acumen makes an act of what 
he calls philosophical faith and rests his faith on what he 
calls analogy, he is presumed to attach a definite meaning 
to his words. What manner of analogy, then, can furnish 
a basis for his faith in spontaneous generation? He must 
be thinking of the analogy presented by the general course 
of evolution. But what has evolution to show? Not a 
single species of any kind is proved conclusively to have 
been derived from any other species. Within certain limits 
there may have been an evolution of species ; but what ap- 
peal to evolution can be made in the present state of science ? 

One thing is certain, that the production of life on this 
earth, which we Christians know by revelation to have been 
the work of a Creator, has not been accounted for in any 
way that enables us to dispense with the creative act. 

We are not in the least inclined to ignore the investiga- 
tions of recent years. We can only wish them godspeed — 
though it must be said they have made no progress toward 
the solution of the question, so far as it can be said to be a 
question at all. Some years ago Professor Burke of Cam- 
bridge made a number of experiments on the action of 
radium on solutions of beef gelatin. He succeeded in pro- 
ducing what seemed to be veritable living cells. There was 
an immediate sensation ; the men of science approached to 
get a near view of the new arrivals, but their expectations 
were sadly disappointed. The supposed living cells could 
not be shown to have more than the semblance of cells, and 
their counterfeit character was given an ingenious and no 
less probable explanation by Sir William Ramsay, of Uni- 
versity College, London. Another striking set of experi- 
ments was that of Professor Loeb, of the University of 
California. The professor actually succeeded in producing 
life. But how ? By producing the larvse of certain animals 
by artificial means from unfertilized eggs. He produced 
living things, but he had the eggs to start with ; which, of 
course, is not analogous to spontaneous generation. Be- 



466 Superstition 

sides it is a well-known fact that the same process takes 
place in nature in the case of bees and ants. 

To return to the argument in favor of spontaneous 
generation placed at the head of this article, it does not 
follow that because life appeared where it had not existed 
before it must have arisen spontaneously from inorganic 
matter. There was the alternative of creation; and there 
is nothing in science to disprove either the fact or the pos- 
sibility of creation; rather there is much to prove its 
necessity. 

''Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its 
kind" — this is the only positive account we possess of the 
origin of life on this earth. It is vouched for by the au- 
thority of the Creator Himself, and it will never be proved 
to be false by anything which human science can bring 
against it. 

STRIKES 

See "Labor Unions." 



SUPERSTITION 

A Groundless Accusation. — The Catholic 
Church permits, and even fosters, every manner 
of superstition. The Mass, the worship of 
images and relics, the use of scapulars, beads, 
Agnus Deis — to all of which a special supernat- 
ural virtue is attributed — furnish abundant proof 
of the accusation. 

The Answer. — The Catholic Church, as every Catholic 
and every convert knows, neither permits nor fosters super- 
stition of any kind. It regards superstition as a sin against 
faith and against the virtue of religion, and condemns it 
as a practical denial of God and His providence. 

But what are we to understand by superstition? The 
definitions of the standard lexicographers agree in the 
main with that of the Catholic catechism, according to 
which we may be guilty of superstition in two ways : 1. By 
practising an ignorant or irrational form of worship, or 
by worshiping a false deity. 2. By attributing to things a 
power which they can not have, either by their nature, or 



Superstition 467 

by the prayers of the Church, or by virtue of a divine 
ordinance. Our dictionaries, as might be expected, have 
nothing to say about the prayers of the Church or about 
the effect of a divine ordinance. 

The first of these forms of superstition is the subject 
of the most virulent attacks made upon the Church. The 
Mass, devotion to the Blessed Virgin, and the invocation 
of saints are regarded as flagrant instances of what our 
enemies are pleased to style the Romish superstition. In 
our separate articles on these topics we have shown that 
both the doctrine and the practice of Catholics in these 
matters are both rational and Christian. In the sacri- 
fice of the Mass we do not adore a wafer — the idea is mon- 
strous. We adore the living God, who has deigned to 
perpetuate His incarnate life on earth beneath the sacra- 
mental species. Our adoration is based on faith, and we 
have a reason for the faith that is in us. Our veneration 
for the saints, and especially for the Mother of our divine 
Lord, is felt and expressed because they are dear to God; 
and we invoke their intercession as we would ask the pray- 
ers of God's friends on earth. 

Even though we Catholics were wrong on these and 
other points, our opponents would not be justified in hurl- 
ing at us such an epithet as '' superstitious," which always 
suggests either crass ignorance or a low degree of in- 
telligence and education in the one to whom it is applied. 
It must be remembered that these supposed forms of super- 
stition have been practised by the vast majority of Chris- 
tians, East and West, for nineteen centuries, and that 
among those Christians there have been countless men and 
women of the highest culture and intelligence, who knew 
the difference between the blind acceptance of stereotyped 
forms and a rational adoption of a religious creed. 

In our own day they have been accepted, practised, and 
defended by many of the brightest intellects in the Anglican 
communion, who, since the beginning of the great Oxford 
Movement, have come over to the Catholic Church in 
thousands. Catholics are not to be placed on a level with 
West African fetich-worshipers. Superstition is blind and 
unreasoning, as well as degrading, whereas Catholic belief 
is able to assign a reason for its adherence to the dogmas 
of religion, and at the same time it elevates and purifies 
the soul of the believer. 



468 Superstition 

In the second form of superstition certain powers are 
ignorantly attributed to things that do not possess them. 
The most familiar examples are those of the silly sort, 
such as a belief in unlucky days (Friday has the worst 
reputation, whatever be the reason) — unlucky numbers 
(thirteen is in very bad repute, from which it will prob- 
ably never recover) — a belief in the magic virtue of horse- 
shoes, and the like. Ascending the scale, we meet with 
practices of a graver sort — the arts of divination (fortune- 
telling, etc.), interpretation of dreams, consulting of spir- 
itistic mediums or theosophic wonder-workers, abuses of 
hypnotism, and similar practices. To charge the Catholic 
Church with favoring any of these superstitions would be 
the suggestion of ignorance or of malice. So far from en- 
couraging them, the Church has always most strictly, and 
in some cases solemnly, forbidden them. 

No well-informed person would assert that superstitions 
of this order are in any way distinctive of Catholic coun- 
tries. Among the simpler classes in Catholic countries 
there is a good deal of superstition of the milder and the 
comparatively harmless sort, but those countries have not 
by any means a monopoly of it. Scotland, Sweden, and 
Northern Germany — which are not Catholic regions — 
abound in superstitious beliefs and customs of a much 
more serious nature than those prevailing in Catholic Ire- 
land or in Catholic Italy. The cities of Hamburg and 
Berlin would seem to bear off the palm for an unblushing 
practice of the arts of divination. Adepts in all manner 
of occultism seem to gravitate to the two cities, where they 
not only practise their trade and advertise their skill, but 
at the same time busy themselves with spreading supersti- 
tious literature. In Berlin a single work of the kind has 
had a circulation of fifteen thousand copies in three years. 
As to meddling with spiritism. Catholics may possibly be 
found here and there whose curiosity gets the better of 
their Catholic faith and loyalty; but it must be admitted 
that Catholics as a class stand aloof from the rest of the 
world in this matter. Catholics, as a rule, are too much 
in touch with right sources of instruction, and too much 
in communication with the sources of grace, to either for- 
get or neglect their duty in the matter of superstition. 

Those who are inclined to condemn the Catholic use of 
rosaries, scapulars, Agnus Deis, and the like, as supersti- 



Theosophy 469 

tious, must be reminded that in each and all of these prac- 
tices there is no attributing of any power to the things 
themselves, even when they have the special blessing of the 
Church. They are used either because they are aids to 
devotion — as in the case of pictures — or because they are 
external marks or badges of loyalty to our powerful patrons 
in heaven — the brown scapular, for instance, being the 
livery of those who reverence the Mother of Our Lord. 
The good they do the soul does not proceed from them- 
selves, but from the pious dispositions and affections which 
accompany their use. 

THEOSOPHY 

Its Pretensions. — Theosophy is the only sys- 
tem of thought that furnishes a key to the mys- 
teries of human life and explains the presence of 
evil in the world. The number and the respec- 
tability of its adherents and the wondrous power 
displayed by some of them are no small argu- 
ment in favor of the intrinsic value of the sys- 
tem. 

Their Valxje. — Theosophy abounds in absurdities, and 
its miraculous pretensions are a species of imposture. Un- 
fortunately, it has a sufficient number of fairly respectable 
adherents to justify a notice of the system in our pages. 

Theosophy as a public cult dates from the establishment 
of the Theosophical Society, founded in the City of New 
York, in 1873, by Madam H. P. Blavatsky and Colonel 
H. S. Olcott. Madam Blavatsky had been initiated in the 
occult sciences in the East and had made an unsuccess- 
ful attempt to found a spiritistic society in Egypt. The 
theosophic system was modified and developed by Madam 
Besant, who was once associated with Mr. Bradlaugh in 
the propagation of atheism. 

Theosophy acknowledges no intelligent or personal Su- 
preme Being. It substitutes for such a Being an indefinite 
Something, sometimes called the Infinite Mind or the Great 
Reality ; but it might as well have been called by any other 
name, as it has no positive attributes of any kind. From 
the Great Reality all things emanate. The human soul 
comes forth from it as a spark issues from a fire. In 



470 Theosophy 

the course of time the soul finds its way into a human 
body, which, however, is only its temporary dwelling-place, 
as it is destined to animate other bodies before it finishes 
its career. The soul and the Great Reality are but one 
Divinity; but the soul does not at once attain to a full 
realization of the Divinity. This it will achieve by a 
series of reincarnations. 

According to theosophists a man's future is entirely in 
his own hands — ^but, in this sense, that his merits or de- 
merits in his present incarnation will settle his status for 
the next one. This is eifected by the blind, but inevitable, 
operation of a law — the law of Karma, as they term it — 
by virtue of which a man's deeds cling to his soul in the 
shape of ''thought-forms," and are landed with him in 
his new stage of existence in a new body. In his second 
life he will find himself, at the start, virtuous or vicious, 
fortunate or unfortunate, happy or unhappy, according to 
his deserts in his previous state of existence. It is for him 
to work out his salvation ; that is, to make provision for his 
next incarnation; for when he arrives at it he will find 
his ledger-account carried forward and ready to accompany 
him on his new journey. Finally, when his virtues have 
ripened to perfection, he is absorbed back into the great 
Eternal Blank from which he originally came. Theosophy 
is, therefore, a form of Emanational Pantheism, as well 
as a form of atheism of the Buddhistic type. 

The space we can allow ourselves in this article will 
only permit us to indicate a few reasons why this strange 
creed should be rejected by every sensible mind. 

1. — Theosophy can not be established by proof. Scarcely 
any attempt has been made to prove its tenets save by an 
appeal to its supposed aptitude to explain the presence 
of evil in the world. But of this more anon. 

2. — Theosophy bristles with absurdities. In the first 
place, the Great Reality is nothing in particular in it- 
self. How, then, can it be the cause of all things that 
exist ? Reason tells me that before a thing can be the cause 
of another thing it must have a definite and determinate 
mode of existence itself. 

3. — ^As the soul is identical with the Divine Reality, both 
its good and its bad instincts must be ascribed to the 
Divinity. Hence, when virtue struggles with vice, it is 
divinity struggling with divinity ! This is all the worse as 



Theosophy 471 

theosophists represent the Divinity as absolute perfection. 

4. — Theosophists speak of ''duty" and ''obligation"; 
and yet one would search in vain in their system for any 
principle on which duty or obligation could be based, or 
for any higher power to which duty is owed. The one 
motive for the performance of duty is a practical, cal- 
culating self-interest; and as for the moral relation of the 
soul to the infinite, the one has no more obligation to the 
other than a spark has to the bonfire from which it has 
escaped. 

5. — There are honest and clear-headed theosophists, 
however, who admit that, strictly speaking, duty has no 
place in their system. "Right" and "wrong," accord- 
ingly, are only convenient terms used instead of the more 
correct expressions, "upward tendency" and "downward 
tendency." Why the distinction should be between up 
and down any more than between right and left or be- 
tween plus and minus, we can not see. But, that question 
apart, one thing is certain — there must be a dividing-line 
between the two things. In other words, there must be 
an absolute standard or law of morality — if morality is the 
right name for it — by which the will may be effectually 
moved. If a theosophist tells me, "The right thing for 
you to do is to tend 'upward,' " I ask him, "Why?" His 
answer is that it is the way to the perfection of my being. 
My rejoinder is that seeking the perfection of my being 
is only a matter of self-interest and is quite outside the 
moral sphere. It furnishes no motive belonging to the 
moral order. And even supposing that "up" and "down" 
were moral ideas, what criterion does theosophy furnish 
whereby to distinguish an "up" from a "down"? The 
two are well distinguished in the Ten Commandments, but 
theosophy has had no Mount Sinai of its own. The truth 
is that theosophy, at bottom, recognizes no moral order of 
any kind. Even self-interest can not be very cheering to 
the man who is struggling "upward" when he reflects 
that when he reaches absolute perfection all personality 
and consciousness in him will be destroyed and become 
identified with the great "nothing-in-particular." Thus 
successive degrees of perfection bring him to nothing! 
Cold comfort, this. 

6. — Physical evil overtaking the individual man is sup- 
posed to be the consequence of sins committed by him in 



472 Theosophy 

some previous incarnation. In other words, the multi- 
tudinous workings of natural laws which are the cause of 
physical evils are brought into perfect correspondence with 
the equally multitudinous workings of the human will, 
which is the author of sin. If a man sins, the laws of 
nature are so adjusted as to bring it about that in his next 
incarnation he will be born, say, to poverty instead of 
wealth. This amounts to saying that laws that are regular 
and inflexible are made to dove-tail with the fitful and 
arbitrary and incalculable operations of the human will. 
Now, such nice adjustment as this is only possible on the 
supposition that there exists an intelligent personal Deity 
who has a foreknowledge of the two orders of events and 
is able to adjust the one to the other. But no such Deity 
is acknowledged by the theosophist. Hence, he is logically 
driven either to abandon one of the most distinctive ele- 
ments of his system or to deny the freedom of the human 
will. 

7. — ^Yet it is just this attempt to account for physical 
evil, especially human suffering, that has attracted to 
theosophy a certain type of Europeans who would other- 
wise condemn this modern adaptation of Buddhism as an 
effete superstition. These converts to theosophy tell us 
that they are dissatisfied with the Christian explanation 
of human suffering. The Christian holds that suffering is 
permitted by God for our greater good, especially in the 
life to come. He regards the very worst afflictions of the 
present life as perfectly insignificant, both in intensity and 
in duration, as compared with the smallest portion of bliss 
in life eternal. Meanwhile, there is a superabundance of 
divine grace at hand to console, strengthen, and encourage 
him, and to enable him to convert his sufferings into occa- 
sions of merit for eternity ; and that, too, notwithstanding 
that many of his sufferings may be the fruits of sin. But 
the theosophist prefers cutting the knot to untying it. He 
gets rid of a personal God altogether and then consoles 
himself with the thought that he has no one to blame for 
his sufferings but himself. He attributes all the vicissi- 
tudes of life to a law of blind necessity — a law, neverthe- 
less, which contrives to act as an engine of retribution. But 
whilst drugging his mind with the new doctrine, he shuts 
his eyes to its real contents. We have seen above some 



Theosophy 473 

of the doctrinal absurdities which the theosophist is made 
to swallow. 

8. — But apart from these, and taken as an explanation 
of temporal suffering, the system breaks down utterly when 
applied to the facts of human life. Theosophy attributes 
pain and poverty in the individual to sins committed by 
him in previous states of existence — the law of Karma 
working with mathematical exactness and landing him, at 
each fresh incarnation, in the precise groove in life which 
his merits have entitled him to occupy. Well, let us apply 
the- doctrine to a case like this : A man during the first 
forty years of his life is healthy, wealthy, and wise. Vir- 
tue within and good fortune without make his life an 
ideal one. Suddenly he is overtaken by a malignant dis- 
ease which makes his life utterly miserable. Has Karma 
blundered ? That man came into his present existence with 
a diploma entitling him to a life of happiness, and forty 
years of virtue have given him a claim to additional hap- 
piness. Why, then, is he treated as a felon? 

The Christian has some explanation for the case of this 
sufferer, but the theosophist is stranded. The opposite case 
of forty years of suffering followed by a period of fairly 
good health is equally inexplicable on theosophical prin- 
ciples. Then, again, how can theosophy explain the fact 
that physical well-being and moral well-being, though both 
are supposed to be the effect of Karmic retribution, are 
not always found in each other's company at a man's 
start in life? Many a child is born at once to wealth 
and to what are called inherited vicious propensities. It 
is easy to weave theories, but not so easy to make them 
square with the facts of life. 

9. — It is almost needless to dilate on the feebleness of 
theosophy in supplying motives for virtuous conduct. Dis- 
couragement must be the effect of the discovery that the 
law of reward and punishment does not work with uni- 
form exactness. In any case, for whom does a theosophist 
conceive he is struggling and striving in the pursuit of 
virtue? For himself, we are told, in another term of 
existence. But is he not virtually striving for another, 
in whom he does not feel a particle of interest? In each 
successive incarnation he has no recollection of previous 
incarnations, and consequently he has virtually changed to 
another person. 



474 Theosophy 

Then think of the prospect of such a series of isolated 
lives closing in real or virtual annihilation! The motive 
derived from eternal happiness has, therefore, no place in 
theosophic morality. Christianity, on the other hand, does 
present such an inducement to virtuous conduct, not to 
speak of motives of a higher and more ennobling order 
which it is constantly holding out to the more generous- 
minded, whereas the motives of theosophy are shadowy and 
illusory. Imagine the case of a man who is drawn to sin- 
ful pleasure with all but irresistible force: what a tre- 
mendous horse-power of theosophic motive must he stand 
in need of to offer any resistance to temptation. On the 
other hand, the man who wallows in vice need be in no 
particular hurry to better his moral condition: he has 
plenty of time on his hands, for his present incarnation 
is not his last. 

But what about the wonderful powers supposed to be 
possessed by certain theosophists ? We are gravely told 
that when one has reached the higher grades of theosophic 
perfection, or has become a '* Master" or "Mahatma," the 
divine or spiritual element is so perfectly developed in 
him that he obtains a complete control over nature's 
forces. In the twinkling of an eye he can pass from one 
side of the globe to the other ! He can make things travel 
through the air with the speed of thought ! But are there 
any such Mahatmas in existence? We are assured that 
there are — somewhere in the mountains of Thibet — and 
certain leading theosophists tell us that they have had com- 
munication with them and have caught something of their 
power. They are not unwilling to exhibit their wonderful 
skill. They will restore at a moment's notice a long-lost 
brooch, or whisk through the air a beautiful vase of flowers, 
all the way from India! 

What are we to think of these marvels ? Many of them, 
fortunately, have been investigated by experts, with results 
exceedingly damaging to the supposed wonder-workers. 
The Society for Psychical Research, which numbers among 
its members many of the leading thinkers and specialists 
of Europe and America, appointed, some years ago, a com- 
mittee of inquiry having at its head Dr. Richard Hodgson, 
who had himself strong leanings to occultism and enter- 
tained a favorable opinion of Madam Blavatsky. He trav- 
eled to India, saw things for himself, and laid the evidence 



Tolerance 475 

collected before the committee, whose full endorsement it 
received. The following are extracts from Dr. Hodgson's 
report : 

''I finally had no doubt whatever that the phenomena 
connected with the Theosophical Society were part of a 
huge fraudulent system worked by Madam Blavatsky with 
the assistance of the Coulombs and several other confed- 
erates, and that not a single genuine phenomenon could 
be found amongst them all." (Proceedings of S. P. B., 
V. iii., p. 210.) *'My lengthy examination of the numerous 
array of witnesses to the phenomena showed that they 
were, as a body, excessively credulous, excessively deficient 
in the powers of common observation, and too many of 
them prone to supplement that deficiency by culpable ex- 
aggeration." {Ibid., p. 210.) "We think that [Madam 
Blavatsky] has achieved a title to permanent remembrance 
as one of the most accomplished, ingenious, and interesting 
impostors in history." {Ibid., p. 207.) No wonder that 
later theosophic miracles have been regarded with suspicion 
or have been proved impostures. 

Theosophy, therefore, has failed to accredit itself as a 
body of doctrine ; it fails to unravel the mystery of human 
suffering ; it is a feeble prop to virtue and a no less feeble 
deterrent from vice; its miraculous side-show is a hoax. 
We have said thus much on the subject partly because 
theosophy is in many points typical of modern systems of 
morality in which a personal God is discarded. 

TOLERANCE 

An Accusation. — Tolerance is the first duty of 
the citizen as regards religious matters ; but "the 
Roman Catholic Church, if it would be consis- 
tent, must be intolerant." — Tschackert. 

The Answer. — According to Christ's teaching, the first 
duty of a man living in a community is not tolerance, but 
love of his neighbor. A pharisaical doctor of the law once 
** asked Him, tempting Him: Master, which is the great 
commandment in the law ? Jesus said to him : Thou shalt 
love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with 
thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the great- 
est and the first commandment. And the second is like to 



476 Tradition as a Rule of Faith 

this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these 
two commandments dependeth the whole law and the 
prophets" (Matt. xxii. 35-40). 

Justice and love are the two first duties of a man to 
his fellow-men. Tolerance is nowhere mentioned in the 
law. Mere tolerance does not go far enough. The Cath- 
olic Church does not merely tolerate her erring brethren. 
She loves them with a divine charity — and that is more 
than tolerance. "Tolerance" is the catchword of genuine 
liberalism, which manages to put up with an obnoxious 
fellow-citizen, but knows nothing of charity. 

But a distinction must be made in the matter of tol- 
erance. Catholics are not intolerant of the erring, but 
toward their error there can be no such thing as tolerance. 
"We can not compromise with error. What is false we can 
not call true, any more than we can call black white. When, 
therefore, the Catholic Church combats error and cham- 
pions truth, she only follows the example of Christ and 
does what every right-thinking man will acknowledge to 
be just. 

Dogmatic tolerance is self-contradiction. How can a 
Church that professes to be a teacher of truth say to the 
thinking world: "If you believe in the Trinity, in the 
divinity of Christ, and in the sacrament of Penance, well 
and good. If you don't believe in them — again well and 
good — for I can't be intolerant"? A Church which is the 
custodian of revealed truth can not compound with error ; 
and any church — ^no matter what elements of truth it may 
retain, or what good it may do to men — any church which 
is seen to throw the mantle of a false charity over all 
vagaries of opinion within its pale is proved thereby not 
to have the hall-mark of Christian orthodoxy. In this con- 
nection the Catholic Church stands quite alone — and is 
thereby proved to be the one faithful custodian of the 
doctrine revealed by Christ. 

TRADITION AS A RULE OF FAITH 

Objection. — Tradition can not be a source of 
true knowledge. There is nothing so unreliable 
as an old story that has passed from mouth to 
mouth and is subject to change at every telling. 
Even written documents are not safe from alter- 



Tradition as a Rule of Faith ¥11 

ation. Every new copy made is likely to contain 
fresh errors. 

The Answer. — Many who urge this objection are be- 
lievers in Christianity; and yet what guarantee can be 
had for the truth of Christianity except in reliable tra- 
dition ? Perhaps such guarantee is furnished by the Bible ; 
but how can we know that the Bible is the word of God 
save by tradition? 

Doubtless there are matters of secular interest about 
which neither writing nor tradition can afford any secur- 
ity from error ; but there are also matters regarding which 
all fear of error is reasonably absent. No sensible man 
doubts about the existence of such historical characters 
as Caesar, Napoleon, or Luther. So, too, in the religious 
domain, there is a body of truth which is sealed as such 
by the continuous and unfailing witness of God's Church; 
and what is this but tradition? 

The Gospels can be proved to be genuine and reliable 
historical documents. And it may be proved from the 
Gospels that Christ, who was sent from on high, estab- 
lished an infallible Church — a fact which is plain from 
His having commissioned the apostles to preach the Faith 
to all nations and from His having declared that whoso- 
ever would not believe them would be condemned (Matt, 
xxviii. 19, 20; Mark xvi. 15, 16). The Church as repre- 
sented by the apostles must be infallible, for otherwise no 
one would be condemned for not accepting the apostolic 
teaching. Now the Pope and the other bishops are the 
successors of the apostles; and they must be supposed to 
teach with the same infallible authority as the apostles, 
for otherwise we are forced to the very unchristian conclu- 
sion that Christ must have meant that all authoritative 
teaching should cease with the apostles! It follows that 
once the Pope and the bishops proclaim anything to be 
a truth of the Faith, it must infallibly be such. 

Now tradition is nothing else but the continuous and un- 
interrupted teaching of God's Church. God has it in His 
power to provide for the continued infallibility of His 
Church — just as of old He provided for the preservation 
of the writings of the evangelists and the other sacred writ- 
ers from errors of fact and of doctrine. 

In the Catholic Church there is every possible guarantee 



478 Trinity, The 

that the tradition on which Catholics rely is not of a loose, 
haphazard sort, containing a large admixture of hearsay 
and legend. The communion of all parts of the Church 
with the Apostolic See of Peter and Peter's successors has 
been the one great source of unity and continuity of teach- 
ing in the Church. The decrees of the Popes, and of coun- 
cils presided over by the Popes, are written in broad char- 
acters on the pages of history ; but, even if there were no 
such record of them, the unfailing continuity of the 
Church's life makes her a witness to apostolic truth in 
every succeeding age. It is to Catholic tradition as thus 
understood that Protestants owe such elements of pure 
Christianity as they retain in their several creeds. (See 
"Bible, The, and Tradition.") 

TRANSUBSTANTIATION 

See ** Eucharist, The. III. — Transubstantiation. " 

TRINITY, THE 

Objection. — The mystery of the Trinity is at 
odds with the multiplication table: one, surely, 
can not be three. 

The Answer. — ^A mystery of religion is a fact or a 
truth which, in itself, is incomprehensible to the human 
understanding, but which, nevertheless, we have God's 
word for accepting as a fact or a truth. Our not under- 
standing it is no reason for rejecting it: there are many 
things we do not understand, but, none the less, they are 
facts. 

The rational grounds on which we place our belief in a 
mystery are these: 1. The doctrine of the mystery is not 
a contradiction of any known truth established by reason. 
2. We have divine authority for accepting it. 

The dogma of the Most Holy Trinity presents to the hu- 
man mind one of the highest and most incomprehensible 
of mysteries, but it does not contradict any truth of rea- 
son. It does not imply that one is three, or that one God 
is three Gods, or that one person is three persons, but 
simply this, that what is one in a certain respect is three 
in another — and in this there is not the smallest contradic- 



Trinity, The 479 

tion. There is only one divine nature, but in this one in- 
divisible divine nature there is a threefold personality. As 
God is one in His nature or essence, there is only one God, 
but in respect to His personality there is a threefold dis- 
tinction. Hence, the Catholic formula: I believe in God 
— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 

In created nature there is nothing that presents a like- 
ness or a parallel to this exalted mystery. There are none 
but very imperfect analogies. In the human soul there 
are three distinct powers or faculties — memory, under- 
standing, and will, and yet there is only one indivisible 
soul to which they belong. Here there is a suggestion of 
the Trinity, but only a suggestion. Memory, understand- 
ing, and will are the soul's powers or capacities, whilst the 
three persons of the Trinity have no such relation to the 
divine nature. The soul, though simple and indivisible, 
is differentiated by the faculties in respect to its activities ; 
whereas in the Trinity there is no such distinction or 
differentiation in the divine nature: only the persons are 
distinguished; and each of the persons, though distinct 
from the other two, possesses the divinity whole and entire. 
Each is God, and yet there is but one God. 

The mystery is unfathomable, but we have no hesita- 
tion in accepting it. God has revealed it to mankind 
through the teaching of His divine Son. Human reason 
can say nothing against it, as it is rational to conceive of 
unity and multiplicity in the same individual viewed under 
two different aspects: an army is one inasmuch as it is 
an army, but multiple inasmuch as it is composed of 
many units; a man is one as regards his humanity, but 
multiple in respect to the offices he holds or the dignities 
he possesses. God is one in respect to His divinity, but 
multiple in respect to His personality. Reason does not 
contradict it, but still it must be confessed that it is be- 
yond the range of reason to conceive how three distinct 
personalities can be the one only God whom we adore. 

But who can be surprised that mysteries should be found 
in our articles of belief touching the nature and attributes 
of God ? God is infinitely above all the works of His hands. 
Hence, there is nothing more natural than that there should 
be many things in the innermost depths of His being which 
are impenetrably mysterious. 



480 Virginity 

VALUE, SOCIALIST THEORY OF 

See ** Socialism I — Its Economic Fallacies." 

VIRGINITY 

The Plea of the Flesh.— The leading of a pure 
life in a state of virginity is impossible for na- 
tures like ours. 

The Work op Grace. — The above proposition is unchris- 
tian, both in meaning and in spirit. Few persons either 
can or ought to marry before reaching what nature and 
custom have fixed as a marriageable age; and yet they 
are supposed to lead a pure life before marriage. They 
must — for such is the commandment of God — ^therefore, 
they can, for God requires nothing that is impossible. 
Many persons are prevented from entering the married 
state at any age. Condemned — if condemnation it is — ^to 
the lot of the unwedded, they must, nevertheless, practise 
chastity. Even in the married state chastity must be ob- 
served, according to the conditions and requirements of 
that state of life. 

Who will presume to assert that all unmarried persons 
are lecherous? or that the occasional difficult situations 
encountered in the married life necessarily lead to im- 
purity? Those who hold that chastity is an impossibility 
offend against faith, against reason, and against the honor 
of their fellow-men; and they are, in many cases, as hard 
upon themselves as they are upon others. 

In order to live chastely, one must be earnest in prayer 
and learn to do violence to himself. Those who neglect 
prayer can not expect to obtain the gift of chastity, for 
chastity is an impossibility without divine grace. A man 
without faith naturally considers chastity an unattainable 
virtue, because, on the one hand, he knows by experience 
the difficulty of overcoming himself, and, on the other 
hand, he ignores the supernatural aid of grace. In other 
words, there is one whole side of the Christian life of 
which he knows nothing; and, hence, he is likely to lose 
his bearings when speculating on possibilities and impos- 
sibilities in the matter of chastity. 

Those who desire to live chastely must carefully avoid 



Virgin Mary, The 481, 

the occasions of sin, such as dangerous company, seductive 
literature, bad theatres, the indulging in impure thoughts 
and desires. Carelessness in these matters will lead almost 
inevitably to sins of the flesh. Temperance in eating and 
drinking must also contribute its aid. 

In a word, the practice of self-denial and the training of 
the will (both by the aid of divine grace) are among the 
first requisites for the preservation of one's virtue. 

VIRGIN MARY, THE 

See "Blessed Virgin, The" and "Saints." 



ALPHABETICAL INDEX 



Abstract thought a proof of 
the spirituality of the 
soul, 452. 

Adoration in spirit and in 
truth, 65. 

Agnosticism, 7. 

Anglican excuses for not en- 
tering the Church, 103. 

Anglican jurisdiction — 
whence derived? 103. 

Apes and men, 13. 

Apostolicity a note of the 
Church, 101, 256. 

Arnold, Matthew, on the 
Mass, 196. 

Astronomy and the Bible, 
44. 

Augustine [St.] on the Real 
Presence, 182; on Matri- 
mony, 282 ; on the primacy 
of the Pope, 353. 

Authority of the Church 
acknowledged by Luther, 
389. 

Authoritative teaching the 
basis of unity in the 
Church, 106, 257; and 
found only in the Church 
of Rome, 105, 258. 

B 

Bellarmine [Cardinal] on 
the Copernican system, 
424. 

Bernadette Soubirous, 318. 



Beza on Protestant dis- 
union, 259. 

Bible, the, its teaching on 
celibacy, 64; the morality 
of its heroes, 16; its in- 
terpretation, 18; its bear- 
ing on modern thought, 
22; is it open to Catho- 
lics ? 37 ; Protestants in- 
debted for it to Catholic 
tradition, 41 ; how to read 
it, 37; do Catholics read 
it? 42; is it at variance 
with science ? 44 ; its rela- 
tion to tradition as a rule 
of faith, 48; its transla- 
tion into all civilized lan- 
guages before the Refor- 
mation, 39. 

Blessed Virgin, the, 54; ap- 
parition of, at Lourdes, 
318. 

Bourget, Paul, on divorce, 
160. 

Boycotts, 275. 

Brain as related to mind, 
299. 



Calvin on Protestant dis- 
union, 259. 

Catholic and Protestant 
countries, 58. 

Catholicity or universality 
a note of the true Church. 
107, 257. 



483 



484 



Alphabetical Index 



Causation, argument from, 
in proof of God's exist- 
ence, 232. 

Celibacy of priests, 63. 

Ceremonies in public wor- 
ship, 65. 

Chance and the world's 
origin, 67. 

Change, law of (socialistic), 
442. 

Change of religion, 393. 

Character and school life, 
165. 

Chastity in the state of vir- 
ginity, 480. 

*' Christian Science," 68. 

Christ's divinity, 74. 

Church of Christ — ^how to 
find it, 97. 

Church, the, Luther's revolt 
against it, 102; its ofSce 
of mediator between 
Christ and mankind, 119 ; 
its relation to Greek phi- 
losophy, 152; its contin- 
ued vitality, 101, 114; its 
doctrine on salvation out- 
side of its pale, 122. 

** Class struggles" in so- 
cialistic doctrine, 443. 

Communion under one kind, 
125. 

Confession, divinely insti- 
tuted, 129; not a means 
of enslavement, 136; not 
a pitfall to the penitent, 
140; not an invention of 
the priests, 136. 
Copemican system, how re- 
ceived by scientists in 
Galileo's day, 423. 
Countries, Catholic and 
Protestant, 58. 



Cranmer on the open Bible 
in Catholic England, 39. 

Creeds and deeds (against 
indifferentism), 141. 

Cremation — ^why forbidden, 
144. 

D 

Darwinism, 13, 146, 208, 
417. 

Darwin's mentality, 149. 

Dead, resurrection of the, 
403. 

Design, argument from, in 
proof of God's existence, 
238. 

Development of doctrine, 
150. 

Didache, the, on the sacri- 
fice of the Mass, 293. 

Divinity of Christ, 74. 

Divorce forbidden by 
Christ, 153; favored by 
socialism, 218, 448. 

Dogmas, 162. 

E 

Economic basis of life (so- 
cialistic), 442. 

Economic contrasts (social- 
istic), 443. 

Education, the Christian 
ideal of, 164. 

Education and eugenics, 
201. 

Education and religion, 164. 

Emerson's pantheism, 336. 

Equality amongst men, 173. 

Eucharist, the, arguments 
for the Real Presence, 
175 ; the doctrine ra- 
tional, 185; transubstan- 
tiation, 188; doctrine of 
the Eucharist in har- 



Alphabetical Index 



485 



Eucharist, the (continued) 
mony with Christian 
ideas, 195; manner in 
which Christ is present, 
175, 188; Christ impassi- 
ble in Eucharistic state, 
198 ; Eucharist received 
under one kind, 125. 

Eugenics, 199. 

Eve and the serpent, 30. 

Evolution, Darwinian, 208; 
Haeckelian, 212; in rela- 
tion to spontaneous gen- 
eration, 462; and Chris- 
tianity, 214. 

F 

Faith, reasonableness of, 
216; necessity of, in con- 
junction with good works, 
for salvation, 268; and 
science, 413. 

Fathers, the, on the Real 
Presence, 180; on tran- 
substantiation, 192. 

Flood, the, was it universal ? 
32. 

Foxe, John, on the open 
Bible in Catholic Eng- 
land, 40. 

Franzelin [Cardinal] , on 
' * substance ' ' and ' ' na- 
ture" in patristic writ- 
ings on the Eucharist, 
291. 

Free love and socialism, 
218. 

Free research among Cath- 
olics, 420. 

Free thought, 228. 

Free will, 455. 



Freemasonry, its character 
as a religious sect, 222 ; its 
anti-Christian spirit, 223 ; 
its so-called spirit of 
brotherhood, 226 ; its oath 
of secrecy, 427; its atti- 
tude toward cremation, 
145. 

G 

Galileo and the Church, 423. 

Geology and the Bible, 45. 

God's existence, 230 ; His in- 
finite perfection, 235 ; His 
revelation of Himself, 239. 

Goethe's eulogy of Jesus, 
76 ; opinion of confession, 
138. 

Good works and salvation, 
240; Luther's doctrine, 
268. 

Grabe (Protestant) on the 
sacrifice of the Mass, 290. 

Grace, necessity of, 240. 



Haeckel's system of evolu- 
tion, 212; his methods, 
242. 

Harnack on development of 
doctrine, 164; on the life 
and work of Jesus, 76 ; on 
the Popes as successors of 
St. Peter in the See of 
Rome, 340; on the resur- 
rection of Christ, 401. 

Hartmann, Edward von, on 
the decline of pure Dar- 
winism, 211. 

Hell, 246. 

History, socialistic philos- 
ophy of, 439. 



486 



Alphabetical Index 



Holiness a note of the 

Church, 111. 
Human race, how old is it? 

249. 



Idolatry, 412. 

Illumination, personal, in 
reading of Scripture, 20. 

Indifferentism, 252. 

Indulgences, their nature, 
261 ; not a pardon for sin, 
266 ; as related to canoni- 
cal penance, 263; as ap- 
plied to souls in purga- 
tory, 264; as abused by 
the unworthy, 264. 

Infallibility of the Pope 
demonstrated, 359. 



Jesus of Nazareth, His ex- 
istence, 266 ; His divinity, 
74; His Messiasship, 296; 
His resurrection, 398. 

John's [St.] conception of 
the Word, 152. 

Justification by faith and 
good works, 268. 

K 
Kelvin [Lord] on science as 

witnessing to a Creator, 

415. 
Kneller, Father, S.J., author 

of "Christianity and the 

Leaders of Modern 

Science," 414. 



Labor and prayer, 166. 
Labor unions, 271. 
Labor and exchange value, 
435. 



Ladd [Prof.] on spirituality 
of mind, 303. 

Latin in the liturgy, 278. 

Law of change (socialistic), 
442. 

Leibnitz (Protestant) on 
ceremonies, 65 ; on com- 
munion under one kind, 
127; on confession, 139; 
on relics, 412 ; on the sac- 
rifice of the Mass, 291 ; on 
transubstautiation, 193 ; 
on St. Peter's presence in 
Rome, 341. 

Liturgies, ancient, witnesses 
to the Real Presence, 183. 

''Logos" [Word] of Philo 
Judaeus, 92, 152. 

Lourdes, miracles of, 307. 

Luther, his reformation a 
revolt against divinely 
constituted authority, 
388; his "experience of 
salvation ' ' ( Heilserf ah- 
rung), 130; his condem- 
nation of schism, 390 ; his 
insertion of the word 
"alone" in rendering 
Rom. iii. 28, 268 ; his opin- 
ion of marriage, 280. 

M 

Marriage a sacrament, 280; 
a permanent union, 154, 
282, 284; subject to di- 
vorce under socialism, 
218, 448. 

Marriages, mixed, 322. 

Married clergy, 63. 

Marx' philosophy of his- 
tory, 439. 

Mary, devotion to, 54. 

Masonry, 221. 



Alphabetical Index 



487 



Mass, the, a sacrifice, 284. 

Materialism, 294 ; socialistic, 
439 ; monistic, 212, 439, 

Materialistic conception of 
history (socialistic), 439. 

Matter and mind, 299. 

Matter not self -existent and 
eternal, 236. 

Mausbach on development 
of doctrine, 163. 

Maxwell, J. C, religious be- 
lief of, 419. 

Melanchthon on Protestant 
disunion, 259. 

Messias, the, sent in the per- 
son of Jesus of Nazareth, 
296. 

Mind and matter, 299. 

Miracles are possible, 304; 
are recognizable in actual 
cases, 307; have been 
wrought by Jesus, 80, 96 ; 
have been wrought at 
Lourdes and elsewhere, 
307; are not in conflict 
with science, 305 ; have 
been unreasonably denied 
by Protestants, 321. 

Missions, Catholic and Prot- 
estant, 108. 

Mixed marriages, 322. 

Modern thought and the 
Bible, 22. 

Monks, 115, 327. 

More, Bl. Sir Thomas, on 
Bible reading in Catho- 
lic England, 40. 

Morality, its causes not to 
be confounded with its 
conditions, 328; its de- 
pendence on religion, 330 ; 



Morality (continued) 
its basis in divine law, 
331; its connection with 
education, 166; are Bible 
heroes deficient in moral- 
ity ? 16 ; Catholics as com- 
pared with non-Catholics 
in point of morality, 112. 

Mysteries, 332. 

Myths, so-called, of the 
Bible, 29. 

N 
Natural laws and prayer, 

374. 
Natural selection, theory of, 

209. 
Notes, or marks, of the true 

Church, 100. 

O 

Original sin, 333. 
Oxford Convocation, the, 
and the Bible, 41. 



Pantheism, 336. 

Papal infallibility, 359. 

Parochial schools, 166. 

Pasteur, on spontaneous gen- 
eration, 308, 463 ; faith of, 
415; his place as a scien- 
tist, 422. 

Paul [St.] on good works, 
240; on marriage as a 
sacrament, 280. 

Pauperization theory (so- 
cialistic), 444. 

Penance, sacrament of, 129. 

Peter [St.] on private inter- 
pretation of Scripture, 19. 



488 



Alphabetical Index 



Pfleiderer's view of the 
resurrection of Christ, 
400. 

Philo Judasus, the "Logos" 
[Word] of, 92, 152. 

Philosophy of history (so- 
cialistic), 439. 

Philosophy, modern, £ind the 
Eucharist, 186. 

Pius VI's commendation of 
Bible reading, 37. 

Pope, the, successor of St. 
Peter in the See of Rome, 
340, 347 ; possessor of the 
primacy, 343; in what 
sense infallible, 359. 

Pragmatism, 369. 

Prayer and labor, 166. 

Prayer and nature's laws, 
374. 

Priests and celibacy, 63. 

Primacy of the Pope, 343. 

Private judgment and the 
Bible, 18. 

Property, right of, 377. 

Prophecies of Jesus, 81. 

Prophecies relating to the 
Messias, 88. 

Prosperity, national, no test 
of country's religion, 58. 

Protestant disunion, 106, 
390. 

Protestant view of miracles. 
321. 

Protestantism a revolt 
against divinely consti- 
tuted authority, 388. 

Protestantism a breeder of 
rationalism and revolu- 
tion, 392. 

Public schools in U. S., 172. 



Purgatory, the doctrine of, 

proved, 380. 
Purgatory and indulgences, 

264. 

R 

Rationalism absurd, 387 ; an 
outcome of the reforma- 
tion, 391. 

Real Presence, the, demon- 
strated, 174. 

Reason and faith, 216, 387. 

Reformation, the, a revolt 
against divinely consti- 
tuted authority, 388. 

Relics, 392, 409. 

Religion, its relation to mo- 
rality, 330; its attitude 
toward eugenics, 199 ; 
toward freemasonry, 221 ; 
toward socialism, 447; is 
it a ''private affair''? 398, 
447. 

Religion, a change of, 393. 

Religious Orders, 115, 327. 

Renan's eulogy of Jesus of 
Nazareth, 76. 

Resurrection of Christ, 398; 
of the dead, 403. 

Revelation, possibility of, 
405. 

Revisionist element of so- 
cialism, 443. 

Rome, See of, occupied by 
St. Peter's successors, 340. 

Rule of faith in Bible and 
Tradition, 48. 

S 

Sacrifice of the Mass, 284. 

Saints not worshiped but 
venerated, 406 ; prayed to 
only as intercessors, 407; 



Alphdhetical Index 



489 



Saints {continued) 
not produced by Protes- 
tantism, 116. 

Salvation and Church mem- 
bership, 122. 

Salvation outside the 
Church, 122. 

Satisfaction for sin and the 
doctrine on purgatory, 
381. 

Sayce [Prof.] on the 
"higher criticism," 28. 

School children and the "se- 
crets of nature," 201. 

School life and character, 
165. 

Schools, Catholic parochial, 
in U. S., 166. 

Schools, the public, in U. S., 
172. 

Schopenhauer on God's ex- 
istence, 230. 

Schurman [President] on 
Darwin's mentality, 150. 

Science and the Bible, 44. 

Science and faith, 413. 

Science and God's exist- 
ence, 230. 

Scientific research open to 
Catholics, 420. 

Scientists who were believ- 
ers, 414. 

Secret societies, why con- 
demned, 426. 

Self-denial rational and sal- 
utary, 428. 

Serpent, the, and Eve, 30. 

Sin, original, 333. 

Six days, the, of the crea- 
tion, 45, 215. 

Socialism, its aims, theories, 
and demands, 430 ; its phi- 
losophy of history, 439; 



Socialism (continued) 
its impracticability, 446; 
its religious bearings, 447 ; 
its view of marriage, 218, 
448. 

Soul, the spirituality of the, 

452. 
Spiritism, 456. 
Spirituality of the soul, 452. 
Spontaneous generation and 

evolution, 462. 
Strikes, 271. 

Suggestion and miracles, 93. 
Superstition not fostered by 

Catholicism, 466. 
Surplus value, socialist 

theory of, 436. 
Sympathetic strikes, 274. 

T 

Telepathy and Christ's mir- 
acles, 95. 

Theosophy, 469. 

Tolerance, religious, 475. 

Tradition, true meaning of, 
476. 

Tradition and the Bible, 48. 

Transubstantiation, 188. 

Trinity, the Blessed, 478. 

Tyndall [Prof.] on prayer 
and natural laws, 374. 

U 

Unions, labor, 271. 

Unity a note of the true 
Church, 105, 257. 

Unity destroyed by the Ref- 
ormation, 390. 

"Unknown laws" of nature 
unable to account for the 
Lourdes miracles, 315. 



490 



Alphabetical Index 



Value, socialist theory of, 
435. 

Virchow [Prof.] on the ape 
theory, 14. 

Virgin, the Blessed, in Cath- 
olic devotion, 54. 

Virginity and chastity, 480. 

Volta's Catholic faith, 419. 

W 

Wages, iron law of (social- 
istic), 445. 

Wallace, A. R., and evolu- 
tion, 26. 



Western Schism, the, and 

Papal succession, 342. 
Will, freedom of the, 455. 
''Word," the, of Philo 

Judseus, 92, 152. 
Workingmen 's condition, 

improvement of, 430, 438, 

444. 
Works, good, and salvation, 

240. 

Worship and ceremonies, 65. 

Wundt [Prof.] on brain and 
mind, 303. 

Wycliife's Bible, 41. 



PRINTED BY BENZIGER BROTHERS, NEW YORK 



3477-9 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




017 285 595 7 



